Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-07T20:40:39Z

Walton One: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */ - rewording for clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-07T20:39:48Z

Walton One: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */ - reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but no private organisation (including churches) should be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-07T19:15:03Z

Walton One: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */ - reply to Ultimahero

General of the Army

2008-05-07T10:39:12Z

Walton One: create stub

'''General of the Army''' is the highest rank of [[officer]] in the [[United States Army]]. Also termed a "five-star general", the rank is only used in wartime. The equivalent in most other countries is [[Marshal]] or [[Field Marshal]].

[[Category:Military]]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-07T10:37:34Z

Walton One: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */ - responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-06T15:57:44Z

Walton One: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */ - reply to Ultimahero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-05T16:53:19Z

Walton One: /* Who here also edits expelled article at WP? */ - fix formatting

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Interiot deserves credit for raising the question of the [[limits of science]], which needs to be covered better in [[Philosophy of science]]. The idea that God may choose to act in predictable ways is a hypothesis (or assumption), just as viable as our age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant. For example, things that feel heavy always fall when dropped. The stars go around the sky every night, but some of those little lights move with respect to the others (these wanderers are called [[planet]]s).

:::It's up to us to figure out what the rules are - of physical phenomena and anything else we can study.

:::What are the laws governing the human mind? Thought, emotion, will - are these purely manifestations of biochemistry in our brains, or what? I don't think [[Physical science]] has a monopoly on the study of [[Psychology]] and [[Sociology]], but these are still [[science]]s, aren't they?
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::::Those "age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant" are not age-old, but are specifically Christian-based assumptions. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for some details. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not. CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::In all fairness there are [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&limit=500&action=history several] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&limit=500&action=history articles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Evolution&limit=500&action=history here] which seem to be "owned" not by a group of editors but by a single person. In the case of Wikipedia there has been clear edit warring which would, by the rules, require a degree of protection (I would personally favour a blanket protection for a few days and no edits to see if some of the issues can be settled on the talk page). Here the articles have received less edit warring or vandalism, and appear to be presently locked for the sake of it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]]!~

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::The WP article is now over 100KB in length (and has a warning about that), with well over half of it devoted to criticisms notable or not. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::Not exactly. The film points out the unfairness of suppressing a viewpoint - period. Don't be obtuse: no one suppresses viewpoints which lack credibility; no one has to suppress the flat earth theory, the very act of considering it makes it obvious to you that it's false.

::The trouble with ID is that considering '''gives it''' credibility. The idea that design comes from a designer usually makes sense to people, and so does the idea that life shows signs of having been designed. Only someone who has a '''non-scientific motive''' for suppressing [[design theory]] would be scared of letting it be described in a science journal or university class. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Science doesn't reject design out of hand as much as it asserts that saying something has a supernatural cause is not valid science, because it can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method. The proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind reality belongs should be studied as philosophy and/or religion, and if it can ever be tested under the scientific method, then as science. By the way, your first comment mentioned that "''Most'' are irrelevant or nonsensical." Which ones do you consider to be be the valid points, and why weren't they left in the article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: ID does not claim that the designer is supernatural. It leaves that question open, probably specifically on the grounds that you mention. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science is unable to detect evidence of design. Science frequently does that, so you are incorrect to claim that the proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind ''life'' (which is all that ID claims, I think) should not be studied by science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
: You speak as though Wikipedia has only just revealed their bias! Yet you and I both know that this is nothing new for them. Thanks for your edits. Although I had a few minor quibbles (and have made changes accordingly), your edits have improved the article. I only wish I could see the movie for myself to better judge the accuracy of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I would think eliminating advocacy could be served by removing the following things:
:*The "Find a Theatre Near You" box, which is outright advocacy.
:*The politicized reception sections, which classify all negative criticism as liberal.
:*The Roebuck quote, which is unencyclopedic and does not touch on the actual movie at all.
:*Large sections of the intro, which abandon the movie and simply argue ID.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I've made some changes following your comments.
:: The "Find a theatre" box is not advocacy, except ''perhaps'' to advocates ''seeing'' the movie. I had previously removed it from the main body of the text on the grounds of being unencyclopedic, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
:: I've changed the headings of the reception/review sections, but not removed the sections as you suggest: I couldn't see the point in removing them. This change actually solved a problem that I'd previously noticed, that Carl Wieland's comments were, as far as I know, not actually a ''review'', he having not seen the movie, I would think.
:: I've removed the Roebuck quote on the grounds that it is about ID, not about the movie.
:: From a quick look, I can't see "large sections of the intro" arguing ID.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I think this is some improvement. I still think that having the theatre box is clear advocacy to see the movie, which implies partisanship and high bias, considering how there is no such box for any other movie (to the best of my knowledge). But perhaps my view of the intro to the article (or rather, I see that I really mean the summary, sorry) is askew, but it still seems to me to be arguing the point rather than summarizing the movie. Thank you for the changes, though.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How many other movies do we have articles on, and how many of them are currently in theatres?
:::: Well, it was the introduction that I checked, not the summary! But looking at ''the Summary'' now, I still can't see that it is arguing ID rather than simply describing what the movie is about.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Who here also edits expelled article at WP? ==

I spend ten times as much time their, but check in over here every once in a while. I have the same user name there if anyone wants to contact me. Who else edits both places? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I would edit, but I'd probably be "banned" from it because it relates to ID - and I'm on probation there. They think that 'neutrality' and 'balance' are tendentious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

List under here (add comments above this line)
----
[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I tried editing it, but it's more stress than it's worth. I think it may be impossible to build a truly neutral and balanced article about this topic, at least through the conventional wiki process. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== moving find a theater box to the end ==

I'm going to move to the end as a link, we don't need to advocate a movie.[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy==

The article needs a controversy section, if we're going to tag it as "controversial" in the first sentence. What is the controversy? Is anyone saying the opposite of what the movie asserts?

Please list the 3 top sources who claim that ID is given equal time in the classroom.

Name any editor or college president who says that scientists are given complete academic freedom regarding ID throughout the English-speaking world.

It's not a controversy if the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials. It's a controversy if there are two sides, presenting arguments. NCSE at least makes a case - even though their arguments are self-contradictory and focus on word games. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: Are you saying that the film is ''not'' controversial? Simply on the grounds that its opponents aren't making a case? If the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials, why doesn't this constitute there being two sides? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, okay. Let's summarize the two sides then.

By the way, you said that someone ''confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]''. I don't think that linkage was made out of actual confusion. The NCSE (among others) has specifically and repeatedly '''claimed''' that ID is an an aspect of creationism - although I'm not sure whether they meant [[YEC]] or [[OEC]]. If it's the former, than their claim is nonsense because YEC entails the faith-based proposition that God created every living thing less than 10,000 years ago. ID is neutral on "who the intelligent designer is" and "when it all began". But stop me if I'm veering off topic.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the key points of the topic. ID opponents see the claims of [[Intelligent Design]] as contradicting the claims of Evolution. And the only alternative to evolution the opponents can think of is Creationism. We might summarize their argument as follows:
#Either evolution is true, or Creationism is true.
#If ID is true, evolution is false.
#Therefore, ID implies Creationism.

It's a pretty impressive theological argument, but it betrays their pretense of not having any religious preconceptions of their own. In fact, I think their chief objection to ID is that it undermines support for atheism.

Of course, they're "not supposed to admit that" so the only other thing they can do is expel ID and its proponents from the academy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the cheif objection here is that Inteligent Design turns the scientific method on its head by starting with a conclusion (God created us) and digging for evidence (Or, rather, a lack of evidence, as shown by the frequent objections on this wiki by creationists which go something like "Unless you have a perfect evolutionary path for every animal where every single step was fossilized, you're clearly wrong.") to support the conclusion. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 01:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But the Scientific Method starts with the presupposition that there is no God, or at least not a God that interfere with the world. It assumes that everything can be explained through naturalistic causes, which by definition precludes God from the start. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Apples and oranges. The goal of science is to figure out how the world works and why it work the way it does. The goal of ID's research, if it can be called that (Really, can sifting through other research then throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, God did it" be called research?) is to prove that life was designed by God. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not apples and oranges. You can't say ID starts off with one assumption and criticize it, then shrug it off when it's pointed out that the scientific method also starts out with an assumption. And ID is not "giving up". It's seeing what appears to be order and design and concluding that it was designed. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Alright, I guess you're right. I shouldn't just shrug that off. However, if we're going through a list of things science does not assume exists, should you not logically criticise it for not accounting for the existence of Eris, Asherah, Loki, Enki, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Eostre, Mithras, Wiskedejak, Spiderman, or other such figures? Furthermore, wouldn't assuming God exists be, well, an assumption?
:Yeah, like I said. Seeing what appears to be order and saying "Well, I guess God made it like that." instead of figuring out a plausible explanation for /why/ it's like that. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But then your saying that God is not a plausible explanation. Why not? In the ID movie, Richard Dawkins admitted to what appeared to be intelligent design, but claimed it might have been aliens who put the life there long ago. So, in all honesty, are aliens more plausible that God? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Is a form of extra-terrestrial life form seeding the planet with lifeforms many millions of years ago more plausible than a supernatural entity creating the entire universe six thousand years ago and not allowing mutations to stack and change the species?
:In all honesty, yeah. They're both rather unlikely, yes, but I'll put my chips on the aliens explanation over the supernatural one. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed, perhaps I should have said "''conflated'' intelligent design with creationism". Also, it depends on how one defines the terms. ID is creationism only in the broadest sense of the word, not in how it is normally used. Creationism doesn't for example, normally include the idea that we were created by aliens, whereas ID doesn't say who the designer is, so doesn't exclude the possibility of aliens.
:: IndianaJ, ID is a argument that the ''scientific evidence'' points to a designer. Now the ''proponents'' of ID might (or might not) have a religious motive, just like proponents of evolution might have a religious (atheistic) motive, but the latter keep telling us that their motive and their science are distinct, so why the double-standard with ID?
:: UltimateHero, it's not the scientific method that starts with the presupposition that there is no god, but naturalistic science.
:: IndianaJ, nobody is seriously proposing the existence of those characters you mentioned, but many people, including many scientists, do propose that the God of the Bible exists. Simply ruling that claim out on the grounds that it's an assumption is just as illogical as ruling it in on the grounds that it's possible.
:: Also, you grossly misrepresent the arguments that ID proponents and creationists make. Perhaps that's because (a) you can't criticise the argument that they actually do make, or (b) you have no idea ''what'' arguments they actually make.
:: Further, the problem with the aliens explanation is that it simply removes the question one step: who created the aliens? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't have this problem, because there's no need to ask who created an uncreated Being.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: You're honestly telling me that no [[Native Americans]] believe in Wiskadejak?
::: Furthermore, perhaps you should inform me about what these arguments are, instead of simply telling me that I don't understand them.
::: You're right, PJR, there's no need to ask who created something that doesn't exist.
::: And finally, re: Motive. The goal of science is not to prove atheism right, but the goal of ID proponents is to prove ID right by circumventing the scientific method by starting with a conclusion. If you seriously don't think that's how it's happening, you're clueless. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 12:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it's opposite of how you stated it. ID looks at the evidence then concludes God. There is no basic assumption. It's secular science that starts out by assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic principles, and thereby define God out of the equation from the start. It's secular science that assumes, not ID. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-05-05T16:52:50Z

Walton One: /* Who here also edits expelled article at WP? */ - yes

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Regarding your last question, what is there to explain? Why does several similar but different flagella speak against design? Rather, it's for the evolutionists to explain why similar items have arisen separately. "Convergent evolution" is code for "we can't attribute it to common descent", yet common descent is what evolution is mainly about! Most "explanations" of gradual evolution are merely "just so" stories, which assume evolution to be true and then explain, usually in very general and untestable terms, how something might have come about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
: ID is a ''positive'' argument, that there is ''evidence of design''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: After I was blocked the section about alleged copyright infringement was removed (again). Why doesn't this belong in an article about the movie, when it was more than adequately sourced (from the producers own countersuit, no less)? Also, Able806 still hasn't been answered on why the Wall Street Journal isn't a credible source for documenting that the producers are accused of using ''Imagine'' without permission. While they responded quickly to the accusations of infringement by XVIVO, the producers have been completely silent on that allegation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

{{unsigned|TrevorAlan}}

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Don't want to overstep my bounds here, but let's review Aschlafly's argument

1 Claims "Variety" is liberal backed by the fact that it does not have a pro-life article in it. Lack of support for one argument does not imply support for the other side. Also insinuates that the readers of "Variety" are liberal and that the magazine would offer appeal to those readers, both statements not supported by an ounce of evidence in this forum.

2 Proceeds to invoke an ad hominem attack on DaBoss3, claiming that he is "clueless" or "in liberal denial," an issue that has yet to be proven by Aschlafly.

3 DaBoss3 takes a ridiculous detour (this I'll acknowledge), which Aschlafly quickly jumps on to circumvent the issue, and combines 2 logical fallacies into one, an ad hominem attack of calling DaBoss3 ignorant and then begging the question, using that claim of ignorance to then assume that he is wrong on the issue of Variety's bias, which is an example of his ignorance.

:::One final note, addressed to the much more reasonable Ed Poor, shouldn't the default status of a publication be apolitical, with the burden of proof (and no, I am not referring to your comment on the burden of proof, I am aware that is a different issue) lying on the person claiming it has bias? --[[User:SeanF|SeanF]] 01:15, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:I just wanted to mention that I deleted the part about Variety having less subscribers than Conservapedia's daily page views. It has no relevance to any sort of argument being presented. --[[User:GeorgeF|GeorgeF]] 18:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good point, although I'm thinking more of Conservapedia's image.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for that clarification. ;) I happen to agree that it is usually better for conservapedia not to block people until they have directly broken the commandmnts, but I can't feel that we've wronged anyone who's been blocked for lesser reasons (though I don't do so myself). Nor can we harm anyone (except perhaps ourselves) by having a double standard. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism. {{unsigned|BenjaminS}}

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been following this movie's development and was very excited to see that it was given such a widespread release being a documentary. This movie was a much needed work to expose the widespread censorship by evolutionist of any notion of intelligent design. I've found a lot of people have no idea of the level that evolutionist will go to keep their theory "safe" from competing ideas and ultimately reality. In the interviews this movie did a good job of exposing the heart of the issue for those on the persecuting side. While some such as Dawkins are willing to accept the possibility of completely unfounded ideas such as aliens being responsible for creating life, they are unwilling to accept the most obvious of answers that we were created by God. The true issues is not about science, it's about their unwillingness to allow God into their atheistic world view. To quote Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The irrationality of the atheistic can be clearly seen even by those who have hardened their hearts against any notion of God. This is why they are so adamant against any idea of God as the creator. Once that idea is allowed, they fear their greatest mental stronghold will be demolished. It's no wonder they hold so strongly to their position of power within the scientific and academic community. One thing I have observed in the public arena is that once you question evolution atheistic evolutionist rush to the defense through everything from argument to ridicule. Just look at the films ratings on [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB's Expelled Page] It's interesting to note how many have rated this film 1 without even seeing it, offended by the very premise of the movie. The first day there was an initial rush of 1 votes by those that gave this movie a poor rating as soon as they were given the chance. One of issues Stein brought to light in this film was media censorship and ridicule of the intelligent design by the media. Liberal movie critics jumped at the chance to misrepresent this film, and lambasting it's very premise with comments such as [http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-et-expelled18apr18,0,1163561.story an attempt to deceive audiences ] and [http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 (an) obvious propaganda piece ] It's apparent one needn't go far to prove that point. I strongly feel this film is a must see for anyone. To comment on the quality of the production, Ben Stein did an excellent job of producing a documentary that is both entertaining and informative. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh my gosh Nathan! I've grown up my whole life in a Christian missionary home... and I don't mind decent secular music! Besides, the film wasn't a Christian film. It existed to point out a wrong in the scientific community, not to evangalize! My goodness your kids are over sheltered if this movie offended you! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I watched the movie at its premiere, but was blocked and haven't had a chance to add my comments here (per the request above) until now. I was even interviewed for television about it, although because it was a Christian media company, I doubt they will air my comments.

It was a pretty bizarre film. Literally five seconds into it, they begin interspersing scenes with old film clips of Stalin's USSR, the Berlin Wall, and Nazi Germany, without any explanation. It isn't until much later that you find out the actual "meaning" behind these scenes.

The film also adopted a strange tactic... it spent the first hour arguing for freedom and how no idea could be dangerous, but that academic inquiry demanded all possibilities be open. And then it spent the second hour insinuating that evolution by means of natural selection was a dangerous idea because it "led" to Nazi ideals. This would seem to be contradictory, at least on its face.

The three or four examples provided by Stein were not very conclusive, especially after one becomes familiar with them. Richard Sternberg martyrs himself in the movie, implying that he was fired from his position and he lost his office because of intelligent design, but even ID advocates admit that neither fact is true. He was already scheduled to leave the journal in which he published the ID paper, and it was his last issue to edit. And the office change at the Smithsonian just moved him to a different office, which he then relocated voluntarily. The rest of the examples are about of the same calibre, and no statistics or other data is provided to suggest that there are others (aside from shadowy anonymous people, but the movie lacks the credibility to believe that).

I couldn't help but notice that they made a number of propaganda-style moves in the film. For example, they only refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism," perhaps to imply it is some sort of cult of personality. But it would be absurd to suggest that modern evolutionary theory relies primarily on Darwin's works. The basic premise he suggested holds true and has been found to be accurate inasmuch as we can tell in science, but that is a very different thing. No one calls relativity "Einsteinism" for the same reason. Another ideological move was to cherry-pick interviewees, selecting only rabidly atheist or terminally-ill insane Texans to represent the evolution side of the debate. Without balancing out this presentation, it just makes it hilariously biased. A comparable move would be a pro-science (evolution) movie which only interviewed Kevin Hovind and his ilk through prison bars. Interestingly and on a side note, the movie equated ID with creationism throughout. I guess the Discovery Institute forgot to remind them to pretend there was a distinction.

Most particularly, the movie used the Holocaust to try to make their ideological point, and didn't even do so well. Berlinski and Stein discuss in the movie how "Darwinism" was a "necessary but not sufficient" cause for Nazism and the Holocaust, yet the movie proceeds to dwell on that tragedy overlong nonetheless. Even if you believe evolution was "necessary but not sufficient," why would you then use that incredible emotional manipulation on the audience to suggest that evolution was the cause? By traveling to the camp (Dachau, I think?) and then discussing at length what went on there, it implies that evolution is at fault, even after they just had to admit that it was not. It's rather insulting.

Stylistically, it borrowed a lot of Michael Moore's techniques, as others have pointed out. Having Dawkins sit in darkness on a stage and Stein travel in a taxicab to "confront" him paints the same sort of (absurd) hero shot that Moore uses (such as in Moore's ''Roger and Me'', when he "confronts" the CEO of Ford Motors). Things like that were fairly common, and the movie actually got pretty boring about two-thirds of the way through. The "shucks I'm just here finding out the truth" schtick got old very quickly... I don't see how anyone couldn't see that the whole approach was staged, and that he had this agenda from the beginning.

So overall, not a very good movie in general, and ludicrously ineffective in establishing its point. Two thumbs way down.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 14:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Science is ''supposed to'' limit itself to things that are falsifiable, but so often [[Falsifiability of evolution|doesn't]]. The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?". Forensic science, archaeology, the SETI program, etc., all ask that question, so why can't ID ask it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Interiot deserves credit for raising the question of the [[limits of science]], which needs to be covered better in [[Philosophy of science]]. The idea that God may choose to act in predictable ways is a hypothesis (or assumption), just as viable as our age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant. For example, things that feel heavy always fall when dropped. The stars go around the sky every night, but some of those little lights move with respect to the others (these wanderers are called [[planet]]s).

:::It's up to us to figure out what the rules are - of physical phenomena and anything else we can study.

:::What are the laws governing the human mind? Thought, emotion, will - are these purely manifestations of biochemistry in our brains, or what? I don't think [[Physical science]] has a monopoly on the study of [[Psychology]] and [[Sociology]], but these are still [[science]]s, aren't they?
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

::::Those "age-old assumption that physical laws are invariant" are not age-old, but are specifically Christian-based assumptions. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for some details. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::*(Interjecting) Your comment is off-topic. This article is not about ID as much as it as about attempts to silence people who talk about it in academia. Science has nothing to fear from false ideas; rather, it is the antidote to falsehood, error and superstition. If you are saying that one of the excuses the anti-ID camp use to silence their critics is simply to brand it as having "no validity", then *that* can go in the article. Do you have any info about that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific approach that finds fault with evolution and says that a creator must be present because nature has signs of design in it. What's un-Christian about that? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Long timescales and common descent is theistic evolution, not ID. ID does not take a stance on whether the earth is young or old... stop putting words in it's mouth! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 17:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:Who are you talking to? If you want to debate, we should have several [[Debate Topics]] related to this issue - and you are free to create another page. But this "talk page" is only for discussion of ways to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm new here, but I find this a moat interesting question. Could you tell me which debate pages specifically address the question of timescale within ID? Thanks. [[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 16:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::The film mentions the connection between Darwinism and eugenics - IIRC it says how many people the U.S. sterilized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:While you may not agree with Walton One's changes, work with him constructively. Our goal is truth. We happen to believe it is found in Conservative ideals, but it is not our intention to cut off the dialogue of a user who has been around for some time and contributed articles to our site in the past that were thorough and educational. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:(To Heffalump) I am a conservative not a liberal, and I don't have a strong personal opinion about the film or about ID. I am trying to ensure the article is neutral and factual, by removing personal opinion and speculation, as per point 5 of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.'' I am not imposing any viewpoint on the article. I realise it is difficult to strike the right balance on such a controversial topic, but we can at least try to be even-handed. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Theistic evolution]]==

This is mentioned in the film, but very briefly. I wish I had a transcript as my notes are incomplete.

One of the men they interviewed said that evolution is incompatible with creationism, despite attempts by Darwinists to enlist liberal Christians. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Full rewrite needed==

Now that I've seen the film, I'm entirely dissatisfied with the article (except the intro and some of the external links).

Basically, the existing version of this article is centered on the POV of ID opponents, rather than being based on the film. While it is okay to voice criticism of the film, first the article should summarize the film and then go into detail about the narrative, composition, look and feel, and especially the points it makes.

If there are any rebuttals to its points, that should come next.

Peripheral points, such as general evolution vs. ID debate, should be minimal. Like a brief summary and then a link to one of our [[Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Make your voice heard==

If your contribution or comment has been reverted, and you think this is just as bad as what the Darwinists have been doing to their opponents, come to [[Conservapedia:Censorship]] and voice your opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[Eugenics]] and the [[Holocaust]]==

A major complaint about the film is its exposure of the ideological linkage between Darwinism's "[[survival of the fittest]]" idea, and the [[Social Darwinism]] based on it. Critics insinuate (or state outright?) that the film unfairly blames the theory of evolution for what demagogues and despots did with it.

However, the film mentions at least twice that no one is blaming all evolutionists for sterilizations and mass murder. But it does point out the precise way in which Hitler used Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology.

This needs to be explained better in the article. We should not print a unsubstantiated accusations here; critics can make their false accusations on their own websites - even if that is an abuse of the freedom of speech - because there should be no censorship in academic debate.

But a trustworthy encyclopedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be first to "break a story". Contributors should watch the movie and write about what the remember seeing and hearing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

* I suspected before watching the film that critics were misrepresenting it, in terms of its presentation of the links between Darwinism, Eugenics and the Holocaust. The typical screed went, "How dare they say evolution is responsible for Nazi genocide?"
* As I watched the film, I made notes of the places where the film makers took pains to make precisely the opposite point of what those critics had said. So I think I was justified in removing their "reviews" on the grounds of simply not being trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::I am of the belief that most of our 'reviews' and viewpoints of individuals detracts from the article, which should be about the movie itself. The article comes across as a back and forth pull of reviews. It doesn't flow. In other words it's sounding a bit like WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, it's sounding precisely like Associated Press, the cream of liberal news media.

:::Here's a nice review or summary:

:::*“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered. [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080421/32048_%5C'Expelled%5C'_Explodes_into_Top_10_Box_Office.htm]
:::{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

== They keep having to lock the WP article ==

It's just a regular comedy of errors over there. Sometimes it's a full lock and sometimes it's a block of anonymous users. Is it any wonder WP is garbage? Exactly how people think it's a reliable source for anything but the most basic, non-controversial things is beyond me. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Jinxmchue. I find [[Wikipedia]] to be worthless for anything of real interest. How [[Wikipedia]] is handling [[Expelled]] is just one of over 100 [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::I finally took at a look at their version, and now I see where all the changes are coming from to our version, which I have been reverting. They are simply plagiarizing WP - ironic, in view of the media flap over the animation [[Premise Media]] allegedly plagiarized from Harvard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias. But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine. Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not. CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::In all fairness there are [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&limit=500&action=history several] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&limit=500&action=history articles] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Evolution&limit=500&action=history here] which seem to be "owned" not by a group of editors but by a single person. In the case of Wikipedia there has been clear edit warring which would, by the rules, require a degree of protection (I would personally favour a blanket protection for a few days and no edits to see if some of the issues can be settled on the talk page). Here the articles have received less edit warring or vandalism, and appear to be presently locked for the sake of it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]]!~

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate. A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion. The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::The WP article is now over 100KB in length (and has a warning about that), with well over half of it devoted to criticisms notable or not. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Definition of criticism==

Saying that they quoted Darwin is not a '''criticism'''. Complaining that they took Darwin out of context would be a criticism, but the section I deleted does not do that. Is there anyone who feels that the points the film made about Darwinism and Eugenics were incorrect? Okay, but first quote the film accurately.

What did the film say about the connection between the writings of Charles Darwin and the beginnings of Eugenics? Or what did Eugenics advocates, such as Hitler, say which sounds reminiscent of Darwin? And who in the movie blames Darwin?

In one or two places in the movie Stein (and maybe someone else) specifically says they are not blaming Darwin for the social implications of his theory - nor are they saying that modern evolutionists are justifying the Holocaust. So what's the criticism?

Sounds like the usual silliness, like:
#The film has Wells in it
#He's a creationist
#Therefore the film endorses creationism
#Believing in creationism makes you untrustworthy
#Therefore the film should not be trusted

That's silly because it also has an atheist in it. Does that mean the film endorses atheism? No, it explores the intersection between atheism and other ideas, and the way academia censors any opposing POV and vilifies its critics.

If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scientific American==

The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.

I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whoa, isn't the point of Expelled about the unfairness if people finding a 'scientific' viewpoint lacking in credibility suppressing its open discussion? If you want ID to be treated credibly, then why not give Scientific American's rebuttal a place in the article and let it stand or fall on it's merit? Otherwise, you wind up using the same tactics you criticize as unfair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|JC]] 20:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

::Not exactly. The film points out the unfairness of suppressing a viewpoint - period. Don't be obtuse: no one suppresses viewpoints which lack credibility; no one has to suppress the flat earth theory, the very act of considering it makes it obvious to you that it's false.

::The trouble with ID is that considering '''gives it''' credibility. The idea that design comes from a designer usually makes sense to people, and so does the idea that life shows signs of having been designed. Only someone who has a '''non-scientific motive''' for suppressing [[design theory]] would be scared of letting it be described in a science journal or university class. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Science doesn't reject design out of hand as much as it asserts that saying something has a supernatural cause is not valid science, because it can't be proved or disproved by the scientific method. The proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind reality belongs should be studied as philosophy and/or religion, and if it can ever be tested under the scientific method, then as science. By the way, your first comment mentioned that "''Most'' are irrelevant or nonsensical." Which ones do you consider to be be the valid points, and why weren't they left in the article? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: ID does not claim that the designer is supernatural. It leaves that question open, probably specifically on the grounds that you mention. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science is unable to detect evidence of design. Science frequently does that, so you are incorrect to claim that the proposal that there's an intelligent designer behind ''life'' (which is all that ID claims, I think) should not be studied by science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal reception ==

I am going to remove the 'Liberal reception' bit. What is the relevance? I am sure some conservatives dont like the movie either while I am sure some liberals are ID supporters. Unless someone can show why this needs to stay I will think of another way to phrase it
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:28, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== WP versus the Good Guys ==

I made the mistake of glancing at Wikipedia's horrendous article about this movie. It's not so much an article about the movie as a point-by-point counter argument against the movie together with a long list of links to bad reviews of the movie. There are some devastating comments about the fairness of the article as compared to how other films were treated. The best part is that they have clearly revealed themselves as what they are: incredibly, wildly biased and totalitarian.

That said, I want to make sure that we safeguard against being Wikipedia's mirror image. I urge other editors to stay within bounds and maintain fairness rather than stepping over into advocacy. This article should not become a "proof" for ID. This article should remain an accurate representation of the movie's theme and ideas.

All that aside, I augmented and edited. Criticism and improvements are welcomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
: You speak as though Wikipedia has only just revealed their bias! Yet you and I both know that this is nothing new for them. Thanks for your edits. Although I had a few minor quibbles (and have made changes accordingly), your edits have improved the article. I only wish I could see the movie for myself to better judge the accuracy of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I would think eliminating advocacy could be served by removing the following things:
:*The "Find a Theatre Near You" box, which is outright advocacy.
:*The politicized reception sections, which classify all negative criticism as liberal.
:*The Roebuck quote, which is unencyclopedic and does not touch on the actual movie at all.
:*Large sections of the intro, which abandon the movie and simply argue ID.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I've made some changes following your comments.
:: The "Find a theatre" box is not advocacy, except ''perhaps'' to advocates ''seeing'' the movie. I had previously removed it from the main body of the text on the grounds of being unencyclopedic, which I think is a reasonable compromise.
:: I've changed the headings of the reception/review sections, but not removed the sections as you suggest: I couldn't see the point in removing them. This change actually solved a problem that I'd previously noticed, that Carl Wieland's comments were, as far as I know, not actually a ''review'', he having not seen the movie, I would think.
:: I've removed the Roebuck quote on the grounds that it is about ID, not about the movie.
:: From a quick look, I can't see "large sections of the intro" arguing ID.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:19, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I think this is some improvement. I still think that having the theatre box is clear advocacy to see the movie, which implies partisanship and high bias, considering how there is no such box for any other movie (to the best of my knowledge). But perhaps my view of the intro to the article (or rather, I see that I really mean the summary, sorry) is askew, but it still seems to me to be arguing the point rather than summarizing the movie. Thank you for the changes, though.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:52, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How many other movies do we have articles on, and how many of them are currently in theatres?
:::: Well, it was the introduction that I checked, not the summary! But looking at ''the Summary'' now, I still can't see that it is arguing ID rather than simply describing what the movie is about.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Who here also edits expelled article at WP? ==

I spend ten times as much time their, but check in over here every once in a while. I have the same user name there if anyone wants to contact me. Who else edits both places? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I would edit, but I'd probably be "banned" from it because it relates to ID - and I'm on probation there. They think that 'neutrality' and 'balance' are tendentious. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

List under here (add comments above this line)
----
[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
I tried editing it, but it's more stress than it's worth. I think it may be impossible to build a truly neutral and balanced article about this topic, at least through the conventional wiki process. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== moving find a theater box to the end ==

I'm going to move to the end as a link, we don't need to advocate a movie.[[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:52, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy==

The article needs a controversy section, if we're going to tag it as "controversial" in the first sentence. What is the controversy? Is anyone saying the opposite of what the movie asserts?

Please list the 3 top sources who claim that ID is given equal time in the classroom.

Name any editor or college president who says that scientists are given complete academic freedom regarding ID throughout the English-speaking world.

It's not a controversy if the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials. It's a controversy if there are two sides, presenting arguments. NCSE at least makes a case - even though their arguments are self-contradictory and focus on word games. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: Are you saying that the film is ''not'' controversial? Simply on the grounds that its opponents aren't making a case? If the people accused of bullying and censorship issue denials, why doesn't this constitute there being two sides? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, okay. Let's summarize the two sides then.

By the way, you said that someone ''confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]''. I don't think that linkage was made out of actual confusion. The NCSE (among others) has specifically and repeatedly '''claimed''' that ID is an an aspect of creationism - although I'm not sure whether they meant [[YEC]] or [[OEC]]. If it's the former, than their claim is nonsense because YEC entails the faith-based proposition that God created every living thing less than 10,000 years ago. ID is neutral on "who the intelligent designer is" and "when it all began". But stop me if I'm veering off topic.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the key points of the topic. ID opponents see the claims of [[Intelligent Design]] as contradicting the claims of Evolution. And the only alternative to evolution the opponents can think of is Creationism. We might summarize their argument as follows:
#Either evolution is true, or Creationism is true.
#If ID is true, evolution is false.
#Therefore, ID implies Creationism.

It's a pretty impressive theological argument, but it betrays their pretense of not having any religious preconceptions of their own. In fact, I think their chief objection to ID is that it undermines support for atheism.

Of course, they're "not supposed to admit that" so the only other thing they can do is expel ID and its proponents from the academy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I'm pretty sure one of the cheif objection here is that Inteligent Design turns the scientific method on its head by starting with a conclusion (God created us) and digging for evidence (Or, rather, a lack of evidence, as shown by the frequent objections on this wiki by creationists which go something like "Unless you have a perfect evolutionary path for every animal where every single step was fossilized, you're clearly wrong.") to support the conclusion. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 01:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But the Scientific Method starts with the presupposition that there is no God, or at least not a God that interfere with the world. It assumes that everything can be explained through naturalistic causes, which by definition precludes God from the start. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Apples and oranges. The goal of science is to figure out how the world works and why it work the way it does. The goal of ID's research, if it can be called that (Really, can sifting through other research then throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, God did it" be called research?) is to prove that life was designed by God. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not apples and oranges. You can't say ID starts off with one assumption and criticize it, then shrug it off when it's pointed out that the scientific method also starts out with an assumption. And ID is not "giving up". It's seeing what appears to be order and design and concluding that it was designed. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Alright, I guess you're right. I shouldn't just shrug that off. However, if we're going through a list of things science does not assume exists, should you not logically criticise it for not accounting for the existence of Eris, Asherah, Loki, Enki, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Eostre, Mithras, Wiskedejak, Spiderman, or other such figures? Furthermore, wouldn't assuming God exists be, well, an assumption?
:Yeah, like I said. Seeing what appears to be order and saying "Well, I guess God made it like that." instead of figuring out a plausible explanation for /why/ it's like that. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

But then your saying that God is not a plausible explanation. Why not? In the ID movie, Richard Dawkins admitted to what appeared to be intelligent design, but claimed it might have been aliens who put the life there long ago. So, in all honesty, are aliens more plausible that God? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Is a form of extra-terrestrial life form seeding the planet with lifeforms many millions of years ago more plausible than a supernatural entity creating the entire universe six thousand years ago and not allowing mutations to stack and change the species?
:In all honesty, yeah. They're both rather unlikely, yes, but I'll put my chips on the aliens explanation over the supernatural one. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Ed, perhaps I should have said "''conflated'' intelligent design with creationism". Also, it depends on how one defines the terms. ID is creationism only in the broadest sense of the word, not in how it is normally used. Creationism doesn't for example, normally include the idea that we were created by aliens, whereas ID doesn't say who the designer is, so doesn't exclude the possibility of aliens.
:: IndianaJ, ID is a argument that the ''scientific evidence'' points to a designer. Now the ''proponents'' of ID might (or might not) have a religious motive, just like proponents of evolution might have a religious (atheistic) motive, but the latter keep telling us that their motive and their science are distinct, so why the double-standard with ID?
:: UltimateHero, it's not the scientific method that starts with the presupposition that there is no god, but naturalistic science.
:: IndianaJ, nobody is seriously proposing the existence of those characters you mentioned, but many people, including many scientists, do propose that the God of the Bible exists. Simply ruling that claim out on the grounds that it's an assumption is just as illogical as ruling it in on the grounds that it's possible.
:: Also, you grossly misrepresent the arguments that ID proponents and creationists make. Perhaps that's because (a) you can't criticise the argument that they actually do make, or (b) you have no idea ''what'' arguments they actually make.
:: Further, the problem with the aliens explanation is that it simply removes the question one step: who created the aliens? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't have this problem, because there's no need to ask who created an uncreated Being.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::: You're honestly telling me that no [[Native Americans]] believe in Wiskadejak?
::: Furthermore, perhaps you should inform me about what these arguments are, instead of simply telling me that I don't understand them.
::: You're right, PJR, there's no need to ask who created something that doesn't exist.
::: And finally, re: Motive. The goal of science is not to prove atheism right, but the goal of ID proponents is to prove ID right by circumventing the scientific method by starting with a conclusion. If you seriously don't think that's how it's happening, you're clueless. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 12:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it's opposite of how you stated it. ID looks at the evidence then concludes God. There is no basic assumption. It's secular science that starts out by assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic principles, and thereby define God out of the equation from the start. It's secular science that assumes, not ID. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2008-05-05T16:51:22Z

Walton One: compromise suggestion?

Template:Oxford Colleges

2008-04-22T11:02:44Z

Walton One: aesthetic improvements to template

{| width=100% style="border: 1px solid midnightblue; padding: 1px; background-color: Navy"
|
|-
|style="border: 1px solid midnightblue; background-color: White; text-align: left; padding: 1px; font-size:90%;font-family:Trebuchet MS"|
{| style="background:none;"
|
'''Colleges of the University of Oxford'''
 
[[All Souls College|All Souls]] •
[[Balliol College|Balliol]] •
[[Brasenose College|Brasenose]] •
[[Christ Church|Christ Church]] •
[[Corpus Christi College, Oxford|Corpus Christi]] •
[[Exeter College|Exeter]] •
[[Green College|Green]] •
[[Harris Manchester College|Harris Manchester]] •
[[Hertford College|Hertford]] •
[[Jesus College|Jesus]] •
[[Keble College|Keble]] •
[[Kellogg College|Kellogg]] •
[[Lady Margaret Hall|Lady Margaret Hall]] •
[[Linacre College|Linacre]] •
[[Lincoln College|Lincoln]] •
[[Magdalen College, Oxford|Magdalen]] •
[[Mansfield College|Mansfield]] •
[[Merton College|Merton]] •
[[New College|New College]] •
[[Nuffield College|Nuffield]] •
[[Oriel College|Oriel]] •
[[Pembroke College|Pembroke]] •
[[The Queen's College, Oxford|Queen's]] •
[[St Anne's College|St Anne's]] •
[[St Antony's College|St Antony's]] •
[[St Catherine's College|St Catherine's]] •
[[St Cross College|St Cross]] •
[[St Edmund Hall|St Edmund Hall]] •
[[St Hilda's College|St Hilda's]] •
[[St Hugh's College|St Hugh's]] •
[[St John's College, Oxford|St John's]] •
[[St Peter's College|St Peter's]] •
[[Somerville College|Somerville]] •
[[Templeton College|Templeton]] •
[[Trinity College, Oxford|Trinity]] •
[[University College, Oxford|University]] •
[[Wadham College|Wadham]] •
[[Wolfson College|Wolfson]] •
[[Worcester College|Worcester]]
|}

Template:Oxford Colleges

2008-04-22T11:01:00Z

Walton One: new template

{| width=100% style="border: 2px solid midnightblue; padding: 5px; background-color: Navy"
|
|-
|style="border: 1px solid midnightblue; background-color: LightSteelBlue; text-align: left; padding: 5px; font-size:90%;font-family:Trebuchet MS"|
{| style="background:none;"
|
'''Colleges of the University of Oxford'''
 

 
[[All Souls College|All Souls]] •
[[Balliol College|Balliol]] •
[[Brasenose College|Brasenose]] •
[[Christ Church|Christ Church]] •
[[Corpus Christi College, Oxford|Corpus Christi]] •
[[Exeter College|Exeter]] •
[[Green College|Green]] •
[[Harris Manchester College|Harris Manchester]] •
[[Hertford College|Hertford]] •
[[Jesus College|Jesus]] •
[[Keble College|Keble]] •
[[Kellogg College|Kellogg]] •
[[Lady Margaret Hall|Lady Margaret Hall]] •
[[Linacre College|Linacre]] •
[[Lincoln College|Lincoln]] •
[[Magdalen College, Oxford|Magdalen]] •
[[Mansfield College|Mansfield]] •
[[Merton College|Merton]] •
[[New College|New College]] •
[[Nuffield College|Nuffield]] •
[[Oriel College|Oriel]] •
[[Pembroke College|Pembroke]] •
[[The Queen's College, Oxford|Queen's]] •
[[St Anne's College|St Anne's]] •
[[St Antony's College|St Antony's]] •
[[St Catherine's College|St Catherine's]] •
[[St Cross College|St Cross]] •
[[St Edmund Hall|St Edmund Hall]] •
[[St Hilda's College|St Hilda's]] •
[[St Hugh's College|St Hugh's]] •
[[St John's College, Oxford|St John's]] •
[[St Peter's College|St Peter's]] •
[[Somerville College|Somerville]] •
[[Templeton College|Templeton]] •
[[Trinity College, Oxford|Trinity]] •
[[University College, Oxford|University]] •
[[Wadham College|Wadham]] •
[[Wolfson College|Wolfson]] •
[[Worcester College|Worcester]]

|}

Brasenose College

2008-04-22T10:53:14Z

Walton One: add Template:Oxford Colleges which I will create

'''Brasenose College''', officially '''The King's Hall and College of Brasenose''', is one of the constituent colleges of the [[University of Oxford]]. It is located on Radcliffe Square, opposite the [[Radcliffe Camera]] and close to the Oxford High Street. Neighbouring colleges include [[Lincoln College]] and [[Hertford College]].

==History==
The College was founded and incorporated in 1509 by Sir Richard Sutton, a lawyer, and William Smyth, [[Bishop]] of [[Lincoln]]. Initially a poor college, it was deeply in debt by the outbreak of the [[English Civil War]] in the 1640s, in which, like the rest of Oxford, it supported the King; the Principal of Brasenose, Samuel Radcliffe, refused to recognise the [[Parliament]]ary takeover of the University in 1649 and remained loyal to the [[Charles I|King]]. Despite its previous financial difficulties, by the late eighteenth century it had a reputation as one of the wealthiest and most aristocratic Oxford colleges.<ref>[http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/history/his/index.html History of Brasenose]</ref>

In the nineteenth century the College was a leader in the development of University [[sport]], predominantly [[rowing]] and [[cricket]].

Brasenose first admitted women [[undergraduates]] in [[1974]].

===Origin of the name===
The unusual name of the college is thought to originate from a brazen ([[bronze]]) [[door knocker]] in the shape of a [[nose]].<ref>[http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/history/his/page4.html Origin of the Name]</ref> The door knocker which today hangs over the High Table in Brasenose College is thought to be the original knocker from the [[medieval]] Brasenose Hall.

==Famous alumni==
*[[David Cameron]]
*[[Henry Addington]], an eighteenth-century [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Prime Minister]]
*[[William Golding]], author

{{Oxford Colleges}}

[[Category:University of Oxford]]

Constable

2008-04-21T22:01:46Z

Walton One: creating stub, will expand tomorrow

A '''constable''' is a title given to [[law enforcement]] officers in several countries. In the [[United Kingdom]], [[Ireland]] and many [[Commonwealth]] countries, Constable is the lowest rank of [[police officer]]. In many states of the [[United States]], constables are elected peace officers with a smaller jurisdiction than a [[sheriff]].

[[Category:Legal terms]]

User:Walton One

2008-04-21T21:57:45Z

Walton One: add [[:Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia

I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia as User:Walton One.

I am from the [[United Kingdom]] and intend to remedy Conservapedia's inadequate coverage of UK topics. I am currently a student at the [[University of Oxford]] reading [[law]]. I'm also a cadet in the [[Officers Training Corps]], a non-deployable training unit of the [[Territorial Army]], and have a major interest in military affairs.

Politically I'm a conservative, leaning libertarian (by American standards I'd probably be classed as fairly libertarian). I support [[David Cameron]] and am an activist for the UK Conservative Party.

I support [[John McCain]] in the US presidential election; I think he's conservative where it counts (i.e. on economic matters; low taxes, small government, etc.) but moderate otherwise. Also, as he's served in the military and been a prisoner of war (unlike any of the other candidates), he has a real understanding of war from both perspectives, and is therefore uniquely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

My Wikipedia userpage can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walton_One here], replete with userboxes.

[[Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia]]

Field Marshal

2008-04-21T19:44:56Z

Walton One: more info and ref

'''Field Marshal''' is the highest [[military]] [[officer]] rank in the [[British Army]] and several [[Commonwealth]] armies. It is equivalent to [[General of the Army]] (five-star general) in the [[United States Army]].

==Origins==
The word "marshal" comes from the [[Frankish]] ''marescalci'', or Master of the Horse. In medieval kingdoms, the marshal was generally an officer of the royal household responsible for commanding the king's [[cavalry]] troops; he was usually subordinate to the [[Constable]], the commander of the king's army.

In the British Army, the rank of Field Marshal was created in 1736 by King [[George III]], when it was conferred on the 1st Earl of Orkney.<ref name="baxter">[http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718(200101)65%3A1%3C218%3ATBFM1A%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J&cookieSet=1 The British Field Marshals, 1736-1997: A Biographical Dictionary], Colin F. Baxter, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 218-219</ref>

==British Army==
The British Army no longer promotes new Field Marshals in peacetime; the last officer to be appointed to the rank was [[Lord Inge]], former Chief of Defence Staff, in 1994.<ref name="baxter"/> However, the rank still formally exists, fulfilling a similar role to [[General of the Army]] in the [[United States Army]].

Notable historical British Army Field Marshals include the [[Duke of Wellington]], [[Bernard Montgomery]] and [[William Slim]].

The rank insignia of a Field Marshal consist of crossed batons over a laurel wreath, and a crown.

==Other armies==
Several other armies use the rank, particularly those in the [[Commonwealth]].

===Australia===
The rank of Field Marshal exists in the Australian Army, though it is rarely used due to the army's small size. The only native-born Australian ever to hold the rank was Sir [[Thomas Blamey]], a [[Second World War]] general, who was promoted to the rank on 2 June 1950.<ref>[http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=38930&geotype=London&gpn=2811&type=ArchivedSupplementPage&all=&exact=&atleast=&similar= London Gazette, 2 June 1950]</ref> The only current (honorary) holder of the rank is HRH the [[Duke of Edinburgh]]; his rank is purely ceremonial and he has no active role in the Australian armed forces.

===New Zealand===
The rank of Field Marshal in the [[New Zealand]] Army has been held since 1954 by HRH the [[Duke of Edinburgh]].

===Pakistan===
The rank of Field Marshal in the [[Pakistan]] Army was held by [[Ayub Khan]], a Pakistani general who served as [[President]] of Pakistan from 1958 to 1969.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Military]]

Field Marshal

2008-04-21T19:34:35Z

Walton One: reflist

Field Marshal

2008-04-21T19:33:53Z

Walton One: new article

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T19:06:38Z

Walton One: /* Imposing your view point */ - reply to Heffalump

Template:Liberalism

2008-04-21T18:11:30Z

Walton One: rm Liberal tools and Liberal tricks, both of which are highly partisan opinion essays; their points are valid, but they don't belong on an encyclopedic template

<table class="infobox" style="float: center; text-align: center; font-size: 80%; clear:right; background:white; border: 2px solid green;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1">
{| cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=100% style="float: center; margin: 0 0 0 0; text-align:center; border: 1px solid;"
|height="20" style="font-size: 95%; background-color:DarkRed;text-align:center; margin-bottom:5px;" |'''[[Liberals| Liberal characteristics and traits ]]'''
|---
|---
|---
|style="font-size: 85%; background-color:WhiteSmoke;"|
[[Liberal bias|Bias]] • [[Liberal deceit|Deceit]] • [[Liberal denial|Denial]] • [[Liberals and friendship|Friendship]] • [[Global warming]] • [[Globalism]] • [[Gun control]] • [[Liberal hate speech|Hate speech]] • [[Hollywood values]] • [[Homosexual agenda]] • [[Liberal hypocrisy|Hypocrisy]] • [[Liberal]]s • [[Liberal logic|Logic]] • [[Liberal myths|Myths]] • [[Liberal obfuscation|Obfuscation]] • [[Liberal quotient|Quotient]] • [[Liberal redefinition|Redefinition]] • [[Liberal bias in academia|School grading]] • [[Liberal Style|Style]]
|-
|}

<includeonly>[[Category:Liberals]]</includeonly>
<noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages defining [[liberal]] characteristics and traits|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Liberals}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

Conservapedia:Proposed merges and moves

2008-04-21T18:10:07Z

Walton One: request move

Only Sysops can perform Movses. Please place requests for proposed merges and page moves below. This page should be used to responses from other editors regarding mergers (particularly those of a controversial nature), or assistance with difficult or complicated mergers.

Alternatively, tag an article with {{tl|merge}}.

After a category is renamed or merged (currently done by hand), {{tl|Category redirect}} should be placed there to avoid new entries being added to the old category.

==Current listings==

''Please list new proposals at the '''top''' of this month's section. Sign each listing or comment by typing: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

===April 2007===
*Move [[Liberal tricks]] to [[Essay:Liberal tricks]], as this is an opinion essay, not an article. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 14:10, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

===March 2007===
*Merge [[Mossadegh]] with [[Mohammed Mossadegh]]; same person, little information. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
*Merge [[Marie Curie]] and [[Marie and Pierre Curie]]... Pierre could have his own article, but the Marie bits obviously need to be merged. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 16:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Maintenance]]

Template:Liberalism

2008-04-21T18:07:11Z

Walton One: rm Liberal celebrity obsession; that page is an essay not an article, and represents its author's opinion, so doesn't belong in the main Liberalism template

<table class="infobox" style="float: center; text-align: center; font-size: 80%; clear:right; background:white; border: 2px solid green;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1">
{| cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=100% style="float: center; margin: 0 0 0 0; text-align:center; border: 1px solid;"
|height="20" style="font-size: 95%; background-color:DarkRed;text-align:center; margin-bottom:5px;" |'''[[Liberals| Liberal characteristics and traits ]]'''
|---
|---
|---
|style="font-size: 85%; background-color:WhiteSmoke;"|
[[Liberal bias|Bias]] • [[Liberal deceit|Deceit]] • [[Liberal denial|Denial]] • [[Liberals and friendship|Friendship]] • [[Global warming]] • [[Globalism]] • [[Gun control]] • [[Liberal hate speech|Hate speech]] • [[Hollywood values]] • [[Homosexual agenda]] • [[Liberal hypocrisy|Hypocrisy]] • [[Liberal]]s • [[Liberal logic|Logic]] • [[Liberal myths|Myths]] • [[Liberal obfuscation|Obfuscation]] • [[Liberal quotient|Quotient]] • [[Liberal redefinition|Redefinition]] • [[Liberal bias in academia|School grading]] • [[Liberal Style|Style]] • [[Liberal tools|Tools]] • [[Liberal tricks|Tricks]]
|-
|}

<includeonly>[[Category:Liberals]]</includeonly>
<noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages defining [[liberal]] characteristics and traits|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Liberals}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:05:16Z

Walton One: /* Wikipedia chimes in */ - signing my earlier comment

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:04:52Z

Walton One: removing more personal opinion; this whole paragraph is still biased, but will clean up later

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film presented evidence suggesting a historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.{{fact}} ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:03:37Z

Walton One: removing personal opinion; correctly attributing comment to source

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.{{fact}} ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:01:28Z

Walton One: /* Wikipedia chimes in */ - note

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T17:59:04Z

Walton One: rv unexplained reversion; please discuss this on the talk page

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T17:54:59Z

Walton One: /* Liberal Reception */ - rm more personal speculation

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T17:54:07Z

Walton One: /* Movie Reviews */ - rm more personal opinion, per the Conservapedia Commandments

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T17:52:29Z

Walton One: rm speculation and personal opinion

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human," a shockingly ignorant claim that denies its unique horror:

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Marshal

2008-04-21T15:01:08Z

Walton One: adding ref and cat

A '''marshal''', depending on the country and the context, may be a [[law enforcement]] or [[court]] officer, a high-ranking [[military]] officer, or some other official charged with security-related duties.

==Military rank==
===Army===
In many countries, Marshal or [[Field Marshal]] is a [[military rank|rank]] in the [[army]], usually the highest rank available. It is generally equivalent to [[General of the Army]] in the [[United States Army]].

In some [[cavalry]] units of the [[French Army]], [[Marshal-of-Lodgings]] is a [[non-commissioned officer]] rank equivalent to [[Sergeant]]. This should not be confused with the title of [[Marshal of France]], a military distinction (not, strictly speaking, a rank) which is granted to [[general]]s for exceptional military achievements.

Some well-known examples of Marshal ranks:

*[[Field Marshal]] ([[United Kingdom]] and [[Commonwealth]])
*[[Marshal of France]]
*[[Marshal of the Soviet Union]]

===Air force===
The [[Royal Air Force]] and some [[Commonwealth]] [[air force]]s use the term "Marshal" for their highest ranks (equivalent to various grades of [[General]] in the [[United States Air Force]]). The senior ranks of the Royal Air Force are structured as follows:

*[[Marshal of the Royal Air Force]]
*[[Air Chief Marshal]]
*[[Air Marshal]]
*[[Air Vice-Marshal]]

==Law enforcement==
In the [[United States]], the term Marshal is used for various [[law enforcement]] officials. At the [[federal]] level, the [[United States Marshals Service]] provides enforcement and security services to the federal [[court]] system, and is responsible for transporting federal prisoners.<ref>[http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/index.html History of the US Marshals Service]</ref> Many states also have marshals as local law enforcement officers (equivalent to a [[sheriff]]) or as courtroom security officers.

==Other uses==
The [[United Kingdom]] has an [[Earl Marshal]], a hereditary unpaid officer of the royal household. The office is held by the [[Duke of Norfolk]] and dates back to the [[medieval]] period. It is not the same as an army [[Field Marshal]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Military]]
[[category:legal terms]

Marshal

2008-04-21T14:54:15Z

Walton One: expanding this article, will add appropriate refs in a minute

A '''marshal''', depending on the country and the context, may be a [[law enforcement]] or [[court]] officer, a high-ranking [[military]] officer, or some other official charged with security-related duties.

==Military rank==
===Army===
In many countries, Marshal or [[Field Marshal]] is a [[military rank|rank]] in the [[army]], usually the highest rank available. It is generally equivalent to [[General of the Army]] in the [[United States Army]].

In some [[cavalry]] units of the [[French Army]], [[Marshal-of-Lodgings]] is a [[non-commissioned officer]] rank equivalent to [[Sergeant]]. This should not be confused with the title of [[Marshal of France]], a military distinction (not, strictly speaking, a rank) which is granted to [[general]]s for exceptional military achievements.

Some well-known examples of Marshal ranks:

*[[Field Marshal]] ([[United Kingdom]] and [[Commonwealth]])
*[[Marshal of France]]
*[[Marshal of the Soviet Union]]

===Air force===
The [[Royal Air Force]] and some [[Commonwealth]] [[air force]]s use the term "Marshal" for their highest ranks (equivalent to various grades of [[General]] in the [[United States Air Force]]). The senior ranks of the Royal Air Force are structured as follows:

*[[Marshal of the Royal Air Force]]
*[[Air Chief Marshal]]
*[[Air Marshal]]
*[[Air Vice-Marshal]]

==Law enforcement==
In the [[United States]], the term Marshal is used for various [[law enforcement]] officials. At the [[federal]] level, the [[United States Marshals Service]] provides enforcement and security services to the federal [[court]] system, and is responsible for transporting federal prisoners. Many states also have marshals as local law enforcement officers (equivalent to a [[sheriff]]) or as courtroom security officers.

==Other uses==
The [[United Kingdom]] has an [[Earl Marshal]], a hereditary unpaid officer of the royal household. The office is held by the [[Duke of Norfolk]] and dates back to the [[medieval]] period. It is not the same as an army [[Field Marshal]].

[[category:legal terms]

Royal canadian mounted police

2008-04-16T21:06:39Z

Walton One: redirect to RCMP

#REDIRECT [[RCMP]]

Tony Perkins

2008-01-21T16:50:17Z

Walton One: correct spelling

[[Image:Tony-perkins.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Tony Perkins of the [[Family Research Council]]]]
'''Tony Perkins''' heads the [[Family Research Council]], a pro family organization supporting [[conservative]] [[Christian]] ideology. He has held the post since 2003. The Family Research Council split off from [[Focus on the Family]] run by [[James Dobson]] in 1992 in order to take more political stands. Perkins attended [[Liberty University]] founded by [[Jerry Falwell]] and was active in Louisiana politics before accepting his current position.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Perkins, Tony}}

[[Category: United States Political Leaders]]
[[Category:Religious Leaders]]

Category:University of Oxford

2008-01-20T19:09:16Z

Walton One: category note

This category is for colleges, institutions, societies, and other articles associated with the [[University of Oxford]].

Graduate

2008-01-20T19:08:22Z

Walton One: new article

A '''graduate''' is, in a general sense, any person who has earned a [[university]] [[degree]]. More specifically, in the academic world, it refers to a student who is studying for a [[masters]] or higher degree, having already earned their [[bachelor's degree]]. In the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Commonwealth]], the term '''postgraduate''' is used instead.

"Bachelor's degree or higher", a phrase often used interchangeably with "graduate", is a category commonly used by the [[United States]] [[Census Bureau]] in measuring levels of [[education]]al attainment within the population. In 2003 27.2% of the population in the United States had an educational attainment described as "Bachelor's degree or higher," meaning that 27.2% of the population had either a Bachelor's or a higher degree.<ref name="US Census Bureau, educational attainment in the U.S., 2003">[http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf|title=US Census Bureau, educational attainment in the U.S., 2003]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Universities]]

Balliol College

2008-01-20T19:03:24Z

Walton One: new article

'''Balliol College''' is one of the colleges of the [[University of Oxford]]. Thought to have been founded in 1263,<ref name="sh">[http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/history/history/ A Short History of Balliol]</ref> it has some claim to be the oldest college, although this is disputed. It was named for its benefactor, the 13th-century nobleman John Balliol.

Today the College has about 400 [[undergraduate]] and 200 [[postgraduate]] students.<ref>[http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/ Balliol College homepage]</ref> It is located on the corner of St Giles and Broad Street, in central [[Oxford]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:University of Oxford]]

Oxford University

2008-01-20T18:58:14Z

Walton One: +cat

[[Image:University Oxford Arms.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The crest and arms of the University of Oxford]]
One of the most influential universities in history, the '''University of Oxford''' was founded in 1167. Located in the city of [[Oxford]], [[England]], it is the oldest university in the English-speaking world. It is organised into 39 colleges, each of which has its own buildings, staff and students; the college is the primary focus of teaching at [[undergraduate]] level, although lectures and degree programmes are organised by the University faculty boards. The oldest of these, [[Balliol College]], was established in 1263; the second-oldest, [[Merton College]], was established in 1264 A.D. Oxford also has a number of "Permanent Private Halls," which are run by churches or [[religion|religious]] orders; the oldest of these is [[Blackfriars Hall]], founded in 1221.

As it is, Oxford University is one of the most respected universities in the world, with many in the Japanese royal family studying for degrees at the university, amongst many others. Oxford's chief rival is [[Cambridge University]], which has a similar reputation.
[[Image:Jesus College.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Jesus College, Oxford]]
==List of colleges and Permanent Private Halls==
The following is a list of Oxford colleges and halls as of 2007.<ref>[http://www.ox.ac.uk/colleges/colleges_and_halls_az/index.html Colleges and Permanent Private Halls, University of Oxford]</ref>

*All Souls College (graduates only)
*Balliol College
*Blackfriars
*Brasenose College
*Campion Hall
*Christ Church
*Corpus Christi College
*Exeter College
*Green College (graduates only)
*Greyfriars
*Harris Manchester College (mature students only)
*Hertford College
*Jesus College
*Keble College
*Kellogg College
*Lady Margaret Hall
*Linacre College
*Lincoln College
*Magdalen College
*Mansfield College
*Merton College
*New College
*Nuffield College
*Oriel College
*Pembroke College
*Regent's Park College
*Somerville College
*St Anne's College
*St Antony's College
*St Benet's Hall
*St Catherine's College
*St Cross College
*St Edmund Hall
*St Hilda's College (women only)
*St Hugh's College
*St John's College
*St Peter's College
*St Stephen's House
*Templeton College
*The Queen's College
*Trinity College
*University College
*Wadham College
*Wolfson College
*Worcester College
*Wycliffe Hall

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.ox.ac.uk University of Oxford website]

[[Category:British Universities]]
[[Category:University of Oxford]]

United Kingdom Special Forces

2008-01-20T18:57:05Z

Walton One: creating stub, will expand and add sources later

The '''United Kingdom Special Forces''', or UKSF, is a directorate of the [[United Kingdom]] Ministry of Defence which covers all [[special forces]] units within the British Armed Forces. It consists of the [[Special Air Service]] and the [[Special Reconnaissance Regiment]] (both parts of the [[British Army]]) as well as the [[Special Boat Service]], which is predominantly manned by [[Royal Marines]].

[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

British Special Forces

2008-01-20T18:54:09Z

Walton One: redirect to United Kingdom Special Forces

#REDIRECT [[United Kingdom Special Forces]]

Kabul

2008-01-20T18:49:09Z

Walton One: new article

'''Kabul''' is the capital city of [[Afghanistan]], located in the centre of the country. As of 2005, the [[United Nations]] estimates its population at around 2,994,000.<ref>[http://esa.un.org/unup/index.asp?panel=2 UN Database of Population Statistics]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Afghanistan]]

State of the Union Address

2008-01-20T18:47:10Z

Walton One: new article

The '''State of the Union Address''' is an annual address in which the [[President of the United States]] addresses a joint session of [[Congress]] (consisting of both the [[Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]) on the status of the nation. The tradition stems from Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution: ''"He ''[the President]'' shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."'' Typically, the Address is used as an opportunity to outline the President's policy proposals for the coming year.

[[Category:United States Government]]

George W. Bush

2008-01-20T18:43:55Z

Walton One: /* Foreign policy */ - expanding

{{President
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|seq=43
|term_start=January 20, 2001
|term_end=Present
|party=Republican
|vp=Dick Cheney
|previous=Bill Clinton
|next=Incumbent
|birth_date=July 6, 1946
|birth_place=New Haven, Connecticut
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Laura Bush
|spouse2=
|religion=United Methodist
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In 2004 Bush won reelection, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000 <ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref>. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. In his [[State of the Union]] address on January 29, 2002, he asserted that an "[[axis of evil]]" consisting of [[North Korea]], [[Iran]], and [[Iraq]] was "arming to threaten the peace of the world" and "pose[d] a grave and growing danger".<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Presidential State of the Union Address] [[January 29]] [[2002]].</ref> Since then, the Bush administration has pursued military action in [[Afghanistan]] and, more controversially, in [[Iraq]], with the stated aims of eliminating threats to United States security and combating [[terrorism]].

===Afghanistan===
On October 7, 2001, US and [[Australia]]n forces were deployed in [[Afghanistan]], then governed by the [[Taliban]], an extremist [[Islamic]] government. They initiated a [[bombing]] campaign which led to the Taliban losing control of [[Kabul]], Afghanistan's capital city, on November 13. By December 2001, an "Afghan Interim Authority" had been installed, led by current Afghan President [[Hamid Karzai]].<ref>[http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm Fact Sheet], Center for Defense Information, 2002-02-14</ref> The stated aims of military action in Afghanistan were to topple the Taliban and to eliminate or capture key leaders of the terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]], as well as destroying all al-Qaeda bases and activities in Afghanistan. However, al-Qaeda leader [[Osama bin Laden]] escaped a battle in December 2001 in [[Tora Bora]] and has not yet been successfully captured.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16 U.S. Concludes bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight], The Washington Post, 2002-04-17</ref>

Despite the US troops' early success in removing them from power, the Taliban was regrouping and amassing funds and recruits by 2003.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html?related Taliban Appears to be Regrouped and Well-Funded], Christian Science Monitor, 2003-05-08</ref> In 2006, offensives against the Taliban such as [[Operation Mountain Thrust]] attained limited success.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=285 World Cannot Give Up On Afghanistan, Coalition Officials Say], US Department of Defense, 2006-02-28</ref> The Taliban remain a major threat to security in Afghanistan today, with US and allied troops working alongside the Afghan government of [[Hamid Karzai]] to combat the Taliban.

===Iraq===

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and President Bush] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. September 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref>

In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

== Economic issues ==
Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the tax on estates. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Bush has presided over a period of general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the Capital Gains Tax, with a subsequent surge in investment.

== Family ==
[[Image:GWBush.jpg|thumb|300px|right|President Bush admires pictures of his family in the Oval Office.]]
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of leukemia.

==Faith==
George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref>

==Polls==

When President George W. Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies including the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] have become unpopular. <ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, he reached the lowest popularity levels of any president in history, with an approval rating of only 24% as shown by a [[Reuters]] poll (although respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with the [[Democrat]]-controlled [[Congress]], which received poll ratings of only 11%).<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

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

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Political people]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
{{USPresidents}}

Fred Phelps

2008-01-19T19:12:25Z

Walton One: rewriting lead per discussion on talk page

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organisation not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behaviour. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the Democratic Party ==

Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref>

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref>

== Phelps and the anti-war movement ==

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued in US District Court in Columbia by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father is suing Phelps for defamation for stating his religious opinion that, ''. Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell ..'' during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. This litigation is currently pending.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredTimGore1.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Former [[Vice President]] and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] with Fred and Timothy Phelps.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and some liberals.
[[Jerry Falwell]] has referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

== Outside links ==
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.htmlOh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.charmaineyoest.com/2007/05/media_alert_chamaine_on_fox_on.php Fred Phelps a closet...liberal]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

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

[[Category:Religious people|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:liberal activists]]
[[category:anti-war movement]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

Lincoln, Nebraska

2008-01-19T18:30:50Z

Walton One: article

'''Lincoln''' is the capital of the [[United States|American]] state of [[Nebraska]] and home to the [[University of Nebraska]].

[[Category:United States Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:US State Capitals]]

Lincoln

2008-01-19T18:30:10Z

Walton One: disambiguating

''For the 16th American president, see [[Abraham Lincoln]].''

'''Lincoln''' can refer to several towns and cities:

*[[Lincoln, Nebraska]]
*[[Lincoln, England]]

Brasenose College

2008-01-19T18:29:10Z

Walton One: new article

Parliament

2008-01-19T16:41:23Z

Walton One: /* Effects on United States Government */ - correct spelling

A '''parliament''' is a national or regional [[legislature]]. More specifically, the term "Parliament" (without the definite article, and with a capital "P") is frequently used to denote the legislature of the United Kingdom, which is composed of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]].

The "Parl-" root means "to speak," as in ''parley.''

==Organization==
The [[Member of Parliament|Members of Parliament]] (MPs) usually represent a political party. Each party is formed by people with broadly similar political views. In most cases, [[MP|MPs]] are elected by the population according to one of a number of electoral systems. Some parliaments use a "first-past-the-post" system where each [[MP]] represents a constituency and is the candidate who received the most votes from residents of the constituency. Other parliaments use a proportional representation system, where the number of [[MP|MPs]] from each political party is proportional to the total votes for that party across the whole electorate. There are many other varieties of voting systems, most of which are variations on these two themes. In rare cases (for example the British House of Lords), the members are not elected by the population but are appointed in some other way.

Many parliaments are made up of two different houses - for example Australia's House of Representatives and Senate. The voting systems of the two houses are usually different meaning the mix of MPs from the various parties will also generally differ.

Usually in a parliamentary system, the government is formed by [[MP|MPs]] from the party which has the majority of members. The leader of that party is the head of government, often called the [[Prime Minister]]. As the government party has a majority of members, it can usually expect to win any votes in the parliament. In the situation where no one party has a majority, there are two possibilities. A minority goverment with members of one party only, which must rely on the support from members of other parties to win votes. The other possibility is a formal arrangement between two or more parties to form a coalition government with a majority of votes, where the government members are from all coalition partners.

This contrasts to presidential systems, where the members of the government (in particular the President) are not members of the legislature.

The [[Prime Minister]] is not elected for a fixed term, but serves for as long as he has the "confidence" of Parliament -- that is, as long as he enjoys their support. Usually, the [[Prime Minister]] (and the rest of the government) is removed after an election at which his party failed to retain a majority in parliament. Occasionally, most often during a period of minority government, the [[Prime Minister]] is removed upon losing a vote of no confidence, or resigns after losing a major vote on an issue they have championed (as [[Italy|Italian]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Romano Prodi]] did in February 2007). In other cases members of the government party may choose to change their leader in which case the new leader becomes Prime Minister, as happened in to [[Margaret Thatcher]] in [[Britain]] in 1990.

First-past-the-post elections are more likely to produce a parliament with two major parties, making minority government unlikely. Proportional voting systems allow third parties a chance to win some representation if they can win a small amount of the national vote without winning a majority of any districts. They are more likely to result in a minority or coalition government. In order to make it easier to form a majority government, proportional voting systems often favor large parties for example through thresholds or the way the number of seats are calculated from the votes.

==Rules of order==

Parliaments and other governing bodies have "rules of order" which govern who may speak, and how votes are taken and counted. These can be very complicated.

To see why these rules are needed, consider this possibility. Suppose a vote is taken when only 300 of the 435 members are there. Suppose 200 people vote for the motion and 100 people vote against it. Should the motion pass? A majority ''of those who were present'' voted for it, but the 200 people who voted for it are less than half of the entire membership. There's no way to tell how the 135 absent members would have voted; if all of them had voted against the motion, it would have been defeated.

In this case, the rule that applies is called the ''quorum'' rule, and it usually says that as long as there are sufficient members present, votes can be taken and the majority ''of those present'' prevails.

"Rules of order" are often called ''parliamentary procedure.'' Many organizations adopt rules of order which are broadly similar to each other. A popular reference book called "Robert's Rules of Order" gives a detailed outline of parliamentary procedure. In a small organization, like the governing body of a club or a town government, many members may not be completely familiar with all the rules. There may be a member called a "parliamentarian" whose job is to know the rules and act as a sort of referee for enforcing them.
[[Category:politics]]

==Effects on United States Government==

Most historians agree that the bicameral legislative style of today was derived from the principles of Parliament.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-01-19T16:13:41Z

Walton One: fixing broken ref

'''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''' is a documentary by [[Ben Stein]] set for release in the spring of 2008, which alleges that those supporting [[intelligent design]] theory are suppressed and persecuted within schools, universities and the scientific community.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref> The film highlights several academic disputes which, according to Stein, demonstrate that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref> Examples given by the film of those who have allegedly been persecuted for their support of intelligent design include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of [[natural history|Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref> However, the film has attracted considerable criticism and controversy, both on scientific grounds and for the methods used in its making.

==Claims portrayed in the film==
In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

The film also implies that [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s theory of evolution was responsible for the [[Holocaust]],<ref name=trailer>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Expelled Movie trailers]</ref><ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00184.htm ''Ben Stein to battle `anti-religious dogmatism`''], [http://www.mediatransparency.org/authorprofile.php?authorID=1 Bill Berkowitz], Top Scoops, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/ Scoop Independent News], [[11 September]] [[2007]].</ref> a view which has previously been put forward by the [[Discovery Institute]], a scientific [[think tank]] which endorses intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.darwintohitler.com/ New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime], [[Discovery Institute]].</ref>

==Criticism and controversy==
A number of members of the scientific community have criticized the film for portraying intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution; they claim that intelligent design lacks scientific credibility and is a form of [[creationism]].<ref>[http://www.hnn.us/articles/45776.html Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?], Leonard and Charles Steinhorn, George Mason University, 31 December 2007</ref><ref name=IDiscreationism>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]." ([http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf ''Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design''], David Mu, [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/ Harvard Science Review], Volume 19, Issue 1, Autumn 2005)</ref> They highlight the fact that a large majority of scientists endorse evolution.<ref name=NIHrecord> [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf ''Finding the Evolution in Medicine''], Cynthia Delgado, [[National Institutes of Health]], July 28, 2006.</ref> However, advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory and is distinct from the concept of [[creationism]].

Some of the scientists interviewed in the film, notably [[Richard Dawkins]], claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and would not have agreed to participate in it had they known of its pro-intelligent design message.<ref name="nyt"/>

== See also ==
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2008-01-18T16:40:14Z

Walton One: /* The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence */ - agree

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-01-17T21:45:58Z

Walton One: substantial rewrite of some parts, add more sources

'''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''' is a documentary by [[Ben Stein]] set for release in the spring of 2008, which alleges that those supporting [[intelligent design]] theory are suppressed and persecuted within schools, universities and the scientific community.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref> The film highlights several academic disputes which, according to Stein, demonstrate that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref> Examples given by the film of those who have allegedly been persecuted for their support of intelligent design include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of [[natural history|Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref> However, the film has attracted considerable criticism and controversy, both on scientific grounds and for the methods used in its making.

==Claims portrayed in the film==
In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

The film also implies that [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s theory of evolution was responsible for the [[Holocaust]],<ref name=trailer>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Expelled Movie trailers]</ref><ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00184.htm ''Ben Stein to battle `anti-religious dogmatism`''], [http://www.mediatransparency.org/authorprofile.php?authorID=1 Bill Berkowitz], Top Scoops, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/ Scoop Independent News], [[11 September]] [[2007]].</ref> a view which has previously been put forward by the [[Discovery Institute]], a scientific [[think tank]] which endorses intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.darwintohitler.com/ New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime], [[Discovery Institute]].</ref>

==Criticism and controversy==
A number of members of the scientific community have criticized the film for portraying intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution; they claim that intelligent design lacks scientific credibility and is a form of [[creationism]].<ref>[http://www.hnn.us/articles/45776.html Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?], Leonard and Charles Steinhorn, George Mason University, 31 December 2007</ref>]<ref name=IDiscreationism>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]." ([http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf ''Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design''], David Mu, [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/ Harvard Science Review], Volume 19, Issue 1, [[Autumn|Fall]] [[2005]]) They highlight the fact that a large majority of scientists endorse evolution.<ref name=NIHrecord>"99.9 percent of [[scientist]]s accept evolution" according to [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf ''Finding the Evolution in Medicine''], Cynthia Delgado, [http://www.nih.gov/nihrecord/ NIH Record], [[National Institutes of Health]], July 28, 2006.</ref> However, advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory and is distinct from the concept of [[creationism]].

Some of the scientists interviewed in the film, notably [[Richard Dawkins]], claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and would not have agreed to participate in it had they known of its pro-intelligent design message.<ref name="nyt"/>

== See also ==
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]