Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2009-04-01T17:37:56Z

WillB:

I seem to be missing something here since there are a few points I don't understand. First how is being sworn in using his full legal name part of pushing a Muslim agenda? Second how is putting more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (a fundamentalist Islamic government) a Muslim policy? [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Using his full legal name when chastising others for using his name reeks of an agenda different than when he campaigned (worried about labeled Muslim before victory and unconcerned using his middle name after election). More troops to Afghanistan is a good thing in my view. I included it because it has to do with dealing with our Muslim enemies, so it is on his agenda. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ok now I see were I went wrong. I was thinking from the introduction this article was going to focus on what Obama had done that could be seen as pro-Muslim and not include items that can be seen as anti-Muslim (more troops to fight an Islamic government) or that are only tangentially related to Islam (such as not using his middle name at first to try to avoid discrimination over possible Islamic ties in his heritage). Thanks for you quick response [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:37, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2009-04-01T17:22:22Z

WillB: Questions

Talk:World History Lecture Ten

2009-03-31T19:34:54Z

WillB: /* Time Line */

*''Earlier the abolition movement, which was motivated mostly by Christianity rather than by non-Christian reform movements, wiped out slavery and slave trade worldwide by 1888. ''
There was a slave market at Taif, about 40 miles outside Mecca, which was not shut down until 1962. ([http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/07/27/d40727150297.htm] and [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a7.html footnote-18]) People who came from all over the world on their journey to Mecca but didn't have the fare for a round trip often fell afoul of the local authorities once the festivities ended. A penniless pilgrim from far away may resort to stealing food for example, which would end up placing him on the auction block at Taif. And a rich pilgrim, before returning home could pick up a bargain-basement wife or man slave at Taif before departing. This is a line of investigation I've been following for some time, as it appears the Saudi regime agreed to ending this millenium-plus old Islamic practice in exchange for increased cooperation with the West, but it's difficult to find a source document with the exact language for closing the slave market.

Upon deeper investigation what is revealed is the trip to Mecca has long been a cover for the worldwide slave trade, and may infact still be practiced to some extent. Islamic societies did not build jails or prisons. Local troublemakers, and the "shiftless unemployed", so to speak, were often sold to slave caravans making the journey to Mecca where the highest prices could be commanded.

Bin Laden's anger at the West is in large part due to Islamic regimes, such as the House of Saud, caving in to Western pressures and breaking long held Islamic traditions and Islamic societies methods of dealing with common social problems. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's another source,
[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php ''Islam and Slavery: The Concealed Truth''], Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

== Preliminary corrections ==

I might make a thorough and detailed list if I have time, but upon glancing through the part on Africa so far I have picked up on two aspects that stood out to me, both rather minor:

*The explorer's name is David Livingstone not Livingston as it is listed on at least one occasion.
*The suggestion that the Nile is unusual in flowing north is rather ambiguous. This idea that it is unusual is simply due to human perception, in that modern maps have north at the top and so it seems counter-intuitive that 'up river' would be 'down south'.
[[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== A World War I Thought ==

This is a thought I've had on the Great War; feel free to use it if you like. While the war itself was dull from a military standpoint, it was of immense political importance. World War I was a huge factor in the Russian Revolution, which, of course, led to Soviet Communism. Further, the conditions that Germany was left in after World War I were a key factor in the ride to power of Hitler and Nazism. (I think that there probably would have been some kind of Russian Revolution without World War I, though the results might have been radically different. I doubt Hitler could have risen to power if Germany wasn't left in abysmal shape after the war.) I'd argue that the two great international conflicts of the 20th Century were World War II and the Cold War. Nazi Germany was a key player in World War II (Japan gets "credit" too, of course), and Soviet Russia was, similarly, a key player in the Cold War. Thus, the two great conflicts of the 20th Century were largely defined by nations that, arguably, would not have existed if not for World War I. I realize this is pretty simplistic, but I'm sure you could expand on it. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 11:04, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Time Line ==

I'm a little bit irritated by the time line. You write ''England attempted to hide and conceal the secrets of its industrial revolution from continental Europe, but the revolution spread anyway. The first European nation to follow England was Belgium in 1807, then France in 1848, and then Germany in 1870. ''
How do you get these precise dates for the beginning of the industrial revolution in the different nations? The one for Germany seems to be wrong: for instance, the steel foundry of the Krupps was founded in 1810.

Could you share your sources?

''The Red Cross society was founded in Switzerland by Jean Henri Dunant, and was used in America during the Civil War.''

The Red Cross was established in 1863. I'm under the impression that the great [[Clara Barton]] started to organize the American chapter in the 1870th, that is, after (and under the impression of) the Civil War.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Technology and Marconi ==
The lecture currently states the Marconi invented the radio where as even the Supreme Court stated in June of 1943 (Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States) that Nikola Tesla was the inventor the the radio. [[User:WillB|WillB]] 15:34, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T23:15:48Z

WillB: /* Article Naming */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:College Road Trip

2008-12-25T17:01:05Z

WillB:

I don't exactly know how to do this, but shouldn't the math error part be in a "Trivia" section? There's nothing about the plot in the entire article. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:35, 24 December 2008 (EST)

:Actually, I'm collecting math errors that I've seen in movies. The 13 cc thing should be moved to [[movie math errors]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:39, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Also Ed 10 inches is 25.4 cm so the radius should be about 12 or 13 cm or the glass should be about 3 or 4 inches in diameter (I have not seen the movie so I'm not sure which one you meant to write)--[[User:WillB|WillB]] 12:01, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-12-22T02:36:40Z

WillB: Undo revision 592056 by JHarris (Talk)

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''', the #1 documentary of 2008,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/v/441 Discovery Institute]</ref> is a [[documentary]] film and DVD charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[intelligent design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[evolution|the theory of evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been met with harsh opposition and/or received punishments 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 co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.

*This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16857&category_id=778</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>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref> This also refers to privately funded science institutions as well.

Perhaps most infuriating for design opponents is the way the film links Darwin's ideas to [[Social Darwinism]] and destructive materialistic ideologies such as Hitler's [[National Socialism]] and [[Marxist]] [[socialism]].<ref> [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778 Expelled - Implications of Neo-Darwinism (4:15)] - Doctors and Scientists explore how the belief in Neo-Darwinism affects our society.</ref>

The film argues 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]], 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>

* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and intelligent design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>

==Summary==

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms and scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.

The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent support for [[atheism]]. ID theory says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an intelligent designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for providing Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".{{fact}}

==Darwinism==

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. One example the films mentions is that modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. The film claims that armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.

The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film. Darwin's theory of Evolution by means of natural selection does not address the issue of the origins of life.

==Academic Freedom==

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the theory of evolution and the ''Origin of Species'' is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of intelligent design.

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

==Not dogmatic about intelligent design ==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

While makers of the documentary say the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth, they say it calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.<ref> [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0 'Expelled' Approaches DVD Release Date]</ref>

==[[Eugenics]]==

The film shows the 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]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>

==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> }}

==Positive reception==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], 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 Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', 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]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{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>}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] "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>

In his quest to attack Ben Stein, 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.

A victim of the sort of discrimination the film documents, [[Russell Humphreys]] said of the film that:
{{QuoteBox|...it kicked me in the gut. It made me see—no, feel—that I’d grown accustomed to the intolerable. I’d been taking the censorship as something in the natural order of things, and as the suppression increased, I just adjusted to it, like the proverbial frog in hot water. But the movie made me realize that our God-ordained right of free thought and speech is under systematic and increasing attack. By controlling the public “microphone”, as Phil Johnson says, the Darwinists have been hoodwinking our minds.<ref name="RH">Humphreys, Russel, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5975 Not too old to be Expelled] 29th August, 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>}}

== Box Office Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens in America. It grossed $2.97 million US, $2,824 per screen, in its first weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third weekend<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref> The producers claim that it was pulled from American theaters due to a lawsuit by Yoko Ono. After the movie won a victory in the lawsuit, a second run release was announced<ref>[http://expelledthemovie.com/rerelease.php Expelled Re-Released]</ref> Initially, Expelled grossed a domestic $7.7 million on a $3.5 million production budget. The promotional budget is unknown. After winning the lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono, ''Expelled'' also began opening in international theaters.

The film is planned to be released on DVD in October 2008.<ref name="RH" />

== Viewer Reception==
Because of the blackballing of the film by people who had never seen it, it is sometimes hard to tell what actual viewers thought. Removing the almost obligatory '1' ratings that detractors of the film give even if they haven't seen it, 1600 voters on the IMDB website gave it a 8.5 rating on a scale from 1 to 10.

Visitors to the Box Office Mojo website gave it a "B-" rating, but this was an average of 266 "A" ratings, 17 "B" ratings, three "C" and "D" ratings each, and 135 "F" ratings, strongly supporting the idea that people's views of the topic affected their view of the film.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Expelled], on Box Office Mojo.</ref>

== Negative Reception==

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

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>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

As expected for a movie that is not '[[politically correct]]', critics paid to rate movies have been harsh with only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic. These reviews merely reflect the extreme [[liberal]] bias present in the media.

== Issues surrounding the film ==
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref> On June 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein (no relation to Ben Stein) ruled in favor of the filmmakers under the "fair use" provision.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0231537020080602</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[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 similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, 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>

*Regarding claims by Dawkins and Myers that filmmakers were tricked into being interviewed for the film, Ruloff has denied any wrongdoing. "There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here," said Ruloff, "but I can assure you it's not coming from us. We're just the ones exposing it." [http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0]

==Film Clips==

WingClips provides several free glimpses into "Expelled".
*[http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16680&category_id=778 Expelled - Genetic Mutation (2:23)] - Scientists discuss how the evolutionary theory of random genetic change contradicts what really occurs in nature.

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)

== 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]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locator for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Documentary film]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-14T23:41:54Z

WillB: /* Statistical Analysis */

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

Talk:Pledge of Allegiance

2008-12-14T23:37:57Z

WillB: /* Red Skelton */

This article could use some history of the Pledge, I think. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:I see the salute was removed. Don't those in uniform salute? (and check out the salute article, it defines both) I'm trying to remember my Boy Scout days, did we salute or do the "hand on my heart" thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ive always been taught hand on heart[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::I'll try to do some "research" ;) [[User:Human|Human]] 23:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I found this:

<blockquote>
The United States Code (4USC4) states that when delivering the Pledge of Allegiance, all must be standing at attention, facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. It also states that men not in uniform should remove any nonreligious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
</blockquote>

here: http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/symbols/pledgeallegiance.html

May I reinsert the word "salute" now? By the way, the hand on heart is a salute, for civilians and those out of uniform. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:When I hear the word salute I think of the of the military form in which a person puts a their hand to the temple. The word salute is kind of vague in that it can mean either way. I think it should say the right hand over the heart because then people will know exactly how to do it. If you use the word salute, people might think it is the other form. --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 23:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good point - how about both? Like, "while the pledge is recited, one stands at attention facing the Flag. Civilians and military out of uniform remove their hats and place their right hand over their heart, military in uniform stand at attention, salute, and remain silent." I think the uniformed military bit is important, GIs are always turning up stateside on visits, etc., dressed in their uniforms. But I agree, it should also be clear to civs ''exactly'' what they are supposed to do without having to go read the [[salute]] article. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:38, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Red Skelton==

Has anyone here ever heard [[Red Skelton]]'s commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance? It's a rare chance to hear a serious talk by a man whose business was to bring people the joy of laughter. [http://www.poofcat.com/july.html audio] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, when I was in Boy Scouts, his commentary was worked into a flag retirement ceremony. It was excellent, and sad to say, ahead of its time in some regards. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Wouldn't that be sad if they said [under God] was a prayer, and eliminated that from school too?" [ibid] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

No then we could just go back to the traditional version which did not have "under God" added in and we would be good to go. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 22:53, 19 November 2007 (EST)

==Original Text==
Why was the original text of the pledge <s>censored</s> removed? It was cited and informative--[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:37, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Fake science

2008-12-14T17:37:16Z

WillB: typo

{{merge|pseudoscience}}

'''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]].

Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the [[scientific method]]. It is akin to [[politicized science]], i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.<ref> [http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health]</ref>

In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What was missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.

A more recent example is the hoopla over [[secondhand smoke]], which liberals say has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths. Anti-smoking activists base this claim on small studies while ignoring larger studies; see [[cherry-picking]]. [http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm]

All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.

First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing [[disinformation]] surrounding any controversy.

:The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Politics of science]]
*[[Astrology]]

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.

==External links==
*[http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health] - Joel Schwartz - January 16, 2007

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-14T03:47:44Z

WillB:

God

2008-12-12T13:01:00Z

WillB: Undo revision 584580 by Beastmanlol (Talk)

''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other Gods]]''
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
{{trinity}}'''God''' is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical [[universe]] or in the spiritual realm ([[Heaven]]). Not only is God the creator and ruler of the things and beings within those two realms, but he is also the creator of the realms themselves. God created the physical universe, and before he acted in this creation, the universe did not exist. Likewise God did with the spiritual realm.

== God is Revealed: How we know about God ==
Other than creation itself, God is revealed in several ways, including conscience and special revelation (the bible, and prophets). Most importantly though, God is revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], who is the Son of God.

== Attributes or Character of God ==
The attributes of God are things that describe who he is. Similar to the way one might describe a close friend to another individual, so too do these attributes describe God's character and nature. Attributes of God include but are not limited to [[Wisdom]], [[Infinitude]], [[Sovereignty]], [[Holiness]], [[Trinity]], [[Omniscience]], [[Faithfulness]], [[Love]], [[Omnipotence]], [[Self-existence]], [[Self-sufficiency]], [[Justice]], [[Immutability]], [[Mercy]], [[Eternal]], [[Goodness]], [[Gracious]], and [[Omnipresence]]. These attributes all work in complete and perfect harmony with one another.

God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in [[hell]], because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely [[Sin]]. According to the [[Bible]], the sacrifice of [[Jesus Christ]] on the cross of [[calvary]] and then [[resurrection]], is God's merciful and gracious response to the problem of the human heart.

=== God is Triune ===
{{main|Trinity}}

Although the Bible does not use the term, it is clear that God is a triune God, or three in one.
These are sometimes referred to as ''God the Father'', ''God the Son'' ([[Jesus Christ|Jesus]]), and the ''[[Holy Spirit]]''.

The first hint of the Trinity is in {{Bible ref|Genesis|1|26}} which relates God saying, "Let us make man in our image", indicating that God is a plurality.

The three persons of God are treated as equivalents in these words of Jesus shortly after His resurrection:
{{Bible quote|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19|version=NIV}}

==== Jesus is God ====

The first verse of the [[Gospel of John]], in which Jesus is referred to as the "Word", makes clear that Jesus is synonymous with God:
{{Bible quote|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.|book=John|chap=1|verses=1|version=NIV}}
This verse not only says that "the Word" (Jesus) is synonymous with God, but also says that the Word was "in the beginning", which means that He existed before all else existed, something that is only true of God.

This is reinforced two verses later, in which Jesus is described as the creator.
[[Genesis]] refers to God as being the Creator.
{{Bible quote|Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.|book=John|chap=1|verses=3|version=NIV}}

==== The Holy Spirit is God ====

In the following passage, the Holy Spirit is referred to as God:
{{Bible quote|Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."|book=Acts|chap=5|verses=3-4|version=NIV}}

=== God is omniscient ===
{{main|omniscience}}

God knows everything:
{{Bible quote|This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.|book=1_John|chap=3|verses=19-20|version=NIV}}

Because God is outside of [[time]], He can see and knows the [[past]] and the [[future]] as well as the present.

== "God" sometimes used to refer to God the Father ==
[[Image:Velasco Padre Eterno.jpg|left|140px|God the Father]]
In the bible, the word "God" (θεός) does not always refer to God's being as a whole, but more specifically refers to the Person of the Father (God the Father). Here are some verses which demonstrate this:
{{cquote|'''John 3:16''' (NASB) For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.}}
{{cquote|'''1 John 4:10''' (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.}}
Notice how in each case, "Father" can be substituted for "God." For example, "For the ''Father'' so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," and "not that we loved the ''Father'', but that He loved us and sent His Son."

== Terminology ==

The Bible uses several different words to refer to God.
"God" itself is not a name, but an [[Old English]] word meaning ''supreme being, diety'',<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god God] Online Etymology Dictionary.</ref> which the translators who translated the Bible in to English chose as the appropriate English word for the [[Hebrew]] ''elohim'' and the [[Greek]] ''theos'' used in the [[Old Testament]] and [[New Testament]] respectively.<ref name="DPK">Kruse, Dale P.,[http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-9.htm More on the ''Names'' of God In the Bible], Advanced Training Program of Evangelism.</ref>

The other main term for God is the Hebrew ''adonai'', usually translated ''Lord''.
There are various compound words also used in the Bible, such as ''el shaddai'', which means ''God Almighty'' ("''el''" is a short version of ''elohim'').<ref name="DPK" />

''YHWH'' is given in the Bible as God's actual name. In most English Bibles it is translated as ''Lord'', in small capitals. The name has various other English versions, including Yehovah, Jehovah, and Yahweh.<ref>McHyde, Tim, [http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/yahweh.htm God’s Name: LORD, Yahweh, Yahveh, YHWH, YHVH, Jehovah or Yehovah?]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Other gods]]
*[[Atheism]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.theopedia.com/God Theopedia - God]
*[http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/god.html ChristianAnswers.net - God]
*[http://wikible.org/en/God Wikible.org - God]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

Science fiction

2008-12-03T00:46:32Z

WillB: /* Notable Science Fiction Series */ add links

'''Science fiction''' is a form of [[literature]] that includes some form of speculation as to a possible [[science|scientific]] or [[technology|technological]] discovery, invention, or project that has not yet come to pass at the time of writing. Such a project is usually, but not always, intended as a metaphor for an unsettling social change, or a vehicle to introduce a discussion of such change. A speculative project may, but does not necessarily, violate the laws of nature as most scientists understand them. A speculative discovery may be either a new scientific law, or a revision of an existing law, or of an object, substance, environment, or even an entire [[civilization]] previously unknown to man.

Alternatively, it may explore the implications of a ''kind'' of sentient being, society or civilization that is significantly different from any with which we are familiar at the time of writing. Such a kind would be a radical departure from anything that remotely resembles a human being, or the societies or civilizations that human beings have built.

It is notably difficult to define what is and isn't Sci-Fi as such stories can be set in the future, present or past, and on alien worlds, alternate forms of Earth or even Earth as it is or was historically. Even defining Sci-Fi as being a medium that contains at its core scientific or technological concepts that are used to either define, drive or resolve the story is inaccurate enough that, as a description, it would include such works as Bones, CSI, etc; which are notably not Science Fiction works. An oft running joke amongst Science Fiction and Fantasy enthusiasts is that while a fan struggles to provide an accurate description of what Science Fiction is and isn't, they still know Science Fiction when they see it.

== History of Science Fiction ==
Science Fiction is a genre of art that deals with concepts of mankind set against the extra ordinary or the fantastic. Magic space travel time travel aliens teleportation mind control dimensional travel and other things that are all totally at odds with what mankind "knows" is scientifically possible are used in many way to display ideas of the artist.

Although it is commonly believed that modern science fiction began in 1818 with the novel ''[[Frankenstein]], or the Modern Prometheus'' by [[Mary Shelley]], examples of science fiction writing are found in the 17th century with writers such as Kepler<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kepler.html</ref>, John Wilkins<ref>http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/wilkins/wilkins.html</ref>, Athanasius Kircher<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/319046/Athanasius-Kircher</ref>, Cyrano de Bergerac<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/148648/Savinien-Cyrano-de-Bergerac</ref>, and Bishop Francis Godwin<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236952/Francis-Godwin</ref>, with their works dealing with a protagonist traveling to the moon and exploring that area, and each work containing and based on speculations of the development of [[science]] and [[technology]] going on what was known about those subjects in the authors' days. However, it is the 16th century that what is indisputably a work of science fiction in the modern sense can be found. The work is Sir Thomas More's ''"Utopia"''<ref>http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm</ref>, first published in 1551, and is a work that even today is referenced in science fiction writings. It was the 19th century that saw the growth of science fiction writing with various works by [[Mary Shelley]], [[Nathaniel Hawthorne]] and [[Edgar Allen Poe]], and with the novel ''[[The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde]]'' by [[Robert Louis Stevenson]]. These works mainly were warnings to a brash mankind that some avenues of scientific investigation would be better left unexplored. The projects resulting from them, however much good they might promise, inevitably bring harm upon the investigator, those closest to him, and any number of innocent bystanders. This applies even to [[Jules Verne]] and his works (such as ''[[Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea]]'' and ''[[From the Earth to the Moon]]''), because the heroes in them almost always come to sad ends. However, science fiction as a literary work was known even to the Ancient Greeks with the works of ''"Lucian's True History"'' and the story of Icarus.

Many of these works are also explorations of human psychology, or of philosophical questions regarding what man is. Stevenson's ''Jekyll and Hyde'', for example, investigates the problem of good and evil, and of the conflict between these forces within an individual.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, [[Herbert George Wells]] and [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] sounded similar dark themes in their work. But their warnings were less about someone investigating something he shouldn't and more about possible dire futures for human civilization and the planet itself. Wells' ''[[The Time Machine]]'' is the best illustration of this concept. Wells also was among the first to speculate on [[Extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrial]] attacks upon the [[earth]], with his classic ''[[The War of the Worlds]]'' (1898).

The twentieth century saw science fiction become far less serious in its purpose. The works of [[Hugo Gernsback]] and others were intended merely to entertain and amuse--in other words, to help the reader escape an unpleasant reality. But reality would soon reimpose itself on the imaginations of science-fiction writers. The nuclear attack on the [[Japan|Japanese]] cities of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]] inspired many writers to create [[monster|monsters]] ([[Godzilla]], [[Rodan]], ''etc.'') of tremendous size and destructive power comparable to the power of [[nuclear weapon]]s. Other writers speculated anew on the harms that can result from playing fast and loose with dangerous new forces--in this case, [[Atoms|atomic]] [[radiation]]. The deepening mutual scorn in which the [[United States of America]] and the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] held one another, originally inspired works featuring [[Extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrial]] expeditionary forces coming to the earth to make war upon humanity (or occasionally to catch humanity in the crossfire). Later writers, editors, and producers, like [[Gene Roddenberry]] (of [[Star Trek]] fame), would speculate that humanity would expand on new voyages of discovery, only to end up fighting with enemies that looked and behaved very similarly to whatever power was foreign to the writer's nation-state of origin. This era would also see the writing of the ''[[Dune (novel series)|Dune]]'' series of novels by [[Frank Herbert]], in which humanity would expand throughout a vast region of the universe, only to divide into interstellar and trans-galactic versions of the civilizations then extant in the 1960's, and even have conflicts over natural resources that closely mirror the struggle for control of such resources, chiefly [[petroleum]], today.

Eventually, however, this theme would give way to hopeful tales of [[God-substitute]]s promising to solve all humanity's problems, if humanity's leaders were smart enough not to provoke such people to war. However, [[George Lucas]], borrowing heavily from mythologycal archetypes, and somewhat from Frank Herbert's concepts for ''Dune'', would create a story arc (''[[Star Wars]]'') set in a far-distant [[galaxy]] that, as he now reveals, is a metaphor for his perception of the War in [[Vietnam]] and the role (which in Lucas' view is ''not'' flattering) of the [[United States of America]] in the civilized world today.<ref>Burns, Chris. "[http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/16/cannes.starwars/ Lucas on Iraq war, 'Star Wars']." [[CNN]], May 16, 2005. Accessed March 12, 2008.</ref><ref>Lucas, furthermore, stated that his "Galactic Empire" could be a metaphor for the [[United States]] in its current war in [[Iraq]].</ref> In the process, Lucas combined the technological prowess shown by producer [[Stanley Kubrick]] in ''[[2001: A Space Odyssey]]'' with the production values and sensibilities of the science-fiction [[B movie]]s of the 1950's and 1960's to create the special-effects-laden "blockbuster" formula that dominates [[motion picture]]s today.

== Science fiction and [[evolutionism]] influencing one another ==
H. G. Wells' work is the best example of prevailing paradigms of scientific consensus influencing science fiction. The meme of evolution was quite strong in Wells' day, and this surely must have informed his projection of the [[evolution]] of man and of civilization into the dire picture he painted in ''The Time Machine''.

The 1950s saw several [[Motion picture|films]] that borrowed plot-themes from evolution. Many of them used ''atavism'' (the retrogression of a species, or even an individual, to a stage of macro-evolution several [[Epoch|epochs]] in the past) as a plot-theme. Although many of these projects more properly belong to the genre called ''horror'' (from the [[Latin]] ''horreo'' I shudder), they all had a strong science-fiction element, using as they did a form of speculation on the progress (or alleged possible regress) of evolution.

In that same era, the author [[Larry Niven]] created a story arc that began millions of years before the present with an apocalyptic war that destroyed every thinking being of the period. Life, presumably, had to re-evolve after that, but artifacts of that war--some of them very dangerous--remained.

More recently, science fiction appears to have influenced "real-life" speculation. The Crick and Orgel theory of [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]] involves an obvious science-fiction device, namely a brace of interstellar or even intergalactic missiles and an extraterrestrial civilization to build and launch them. Crick and Orgel, in turn, influenced the successors of Gene Roddenberry to tell a story of the contact, on the part of humanity and its allied civilizations, with the very civilization that fired such a brace of missiles at earth and other worlds.

Even more recently than this, [[Carl Sagan]] wrote a novel (''Contact'') in which he openly speculated on how the first "contact" with [[Extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrial]] explorers or "ambassadors" might unfold. This novel was subsequently adapted into a [[motion picture|film]].

== Faith-based science fiction ==
At first glance, such a concept might seem oxymoronic. However, a writer of science fiction might choose to limit his speculations strictly to those for which a [[Bible|Scriptural]] warrant exists, and to create a character or characters whose abiding faith informs their decisions and actions. A writer might also project his characters into a world that the [[Bible]] or [[creation science]] might predict, and evolutionary [[science]] might declare impossible.

Plot-themes of recent faith-based science-fiction works have involved time travel, either real or virtual, to past human environments, for example to [[Jerusalem]] before its destruction by a [[Rome|Roman]] general<ref>Ingermanson, Randall Scott. ''The City of God Series'', including ''Transgression'', ''Premonition'', and ''Retribution''. Published by Bethany House Publishers in 2000, 2003, and 2004.</ref> or even to the civilization that might have existed shortly before the [[Great Flood]]<ref>[[Shane Johnson|Johnson, Shane]]. ''[[Ice (novel)|Ice: The Greatest Truths Lie in the Darkest Shadows]]''. Waterbrook Press, 2002.</ref>. [[Eschatology]] is possibly the most frequent theme in Christian science fiction today<ref>See, for example, LaHaye, Timothy, and Jenkins, Jerry B. ''Left Behind: a Series of the Earth's Last Days''. Published by Tyndale House Publishers from 1995 to the present.</ref>. [[Television]] producer Glen A. Larson, in 1978, developed a short-lived series suggested by key tenets of his own [[Mormonism|Mormon]] faith.<ref>Lorenzen, Michael. "[http://www.michaellorenzen.com/galactica.html Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism].'' Publised on-line 2002. Accessed January 7, 2008.</ref><ref>Leventry, Ellen. "[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/166/story_16633_1.html Born again 'Battlestar': The Theology of 'Battlestar Galactica']." ''<http://www.beliefnet.com>''. Accessed January 7, 2008.</ref><ref>Editor unknown. "[http://theofantastique.blogspot.com/2007/10/james-mcgrath-on-religion-in-science.html James McGrath on Religion and Science Fiction: An Interview]." ''TheoFantastique''. Accessed January 7, 2008.</ref>

Beyond these examples, a science-fiction writer might create an entirely artificial religious system and set stories in it. This raises the question of where ''science'' fiction ends and the larger category of ''speculative'' fiction, that might or might not include the treatment of a scientific invention or development, begins.

==Other Subgenres==
'''Cyberpunk''' stories, as pioneered by [[William Gibson]], often take place in a [[dystopia|dystopian]] near-future setting, usually populated mostly by criminals of one sort or another. These stories usually revolve around a [[hacker]] or similar [[anti-hero]], often working for only their own good.

'''Hard science fiction''' stories usually place a lot of emphasis on possible technology, and scientific accuracy.

'''Soft science fiction''' stories, on the other hand, focus more on the human side of things.

== Notable Science Fiction Series ==

Future History - [[Robert Heinlein]]

The Foundation series - [[Isaac Asimov]]

The Star Wars Films - [[George Lucas]]

The Star Wars novels (currently numbering in excess of 130) - Various Authors

The Ringworld series - [[Larry Niven]]

The Gap series - [[Stephen Donaldson]]

The Lensman series - [[E.E. "Doc" Smith]]

The Skylark series - E.E. "Doc" Smith

2001: A Space Odyssey - [[Arthur C. Clarke]]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - [[Douglas Adams]]

Doctor Who - Various Authors, Writers, etc.

Star Trek (original and all spin-offs) - [[Gene Roddenberry]] and Various

Hoka - [[Poul Anderson]]

The Psychotechnic League - Poul Anderson

Tomorrow's Children - Poul Anderson

Technic History - Poul Anderson

Time Patrol - Poul Anderson

History of Rustum - Poul Anderson

Maurai - Poul Anderson

Kith - Poul Anderson

Harvest of Stars - Poul Anderson

The Forge of God series - [[Greg Bear]]

Battlestar Galactica - [[Glen Larson]] and [[Ronald D. Moore]]

Blake's 7 - [[Terry Nation]]

Farscape - [[Rockne S. O'Bannon]]

Babylon 5 - [[J. Michael Straczynski]]

== References ==
<references/>

== Related Links ==
[http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/history/default.htm Science Fiction History]

[[Category:Science fiction| ]]
[[Category:Genres]]
[[Category:Literary genres]]

Talk:American History Lecture Twelve

2008-11-30T23:37:30Z

WillB: /* Spelling */

This is laughable.

Where is the discussion of the [[Cuban Misslie Crisis]], one of the pivotal points of the Cold War?

"Hippies started protesting the Vietnam War". No, all sorts of people started protesting the Vietnam War: lawyers, accountants, college graduates, all sorts of people.

"A substantial percentage of our casualties in the Vietnam War were from stepping on land mines. That indicated a lack of smart leadership on our side. Today we have mine-sweepers to clear out dangerous areas before our soldiers enter them."

The US has had land mine clearance devices since World War II. A simple check of facts would have revealed this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Voluntary draft?==

"the draft (it was required of young men then, but is voluntary today)," That doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as a voluntary draft. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 16:19, 30 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks, Ed. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 16:24, 30 November 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==
"Some, your teacher include, think that the nation is perpetually becoming more conservative as liberal ideas are perpetually demonstrated to be failures." From the Post-WW2 culture section. Include should have a d at the end and perpetually is used twice. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to fix the lectures. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 17:52, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks much, and please feel free to correct and improve the lecture as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::Hard for him to do that since he was banned for 3 months just before you posted --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:37, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Family Guy

2008-11-25T13:45:53Z

WillB: I think some form of creationism is more accepted in the US then evolution

'''Family Guy''' is an animated television program created by Seth MacFarlane set about the life of "the Griffins," a fictional family who live in Quahog, [[Rhode Island]]. The show, like the Simpsons and other cartoon shows on television, explores cultural and political themes that are important in the world today, as well as taking humorous approaches to past & present television shows.<ref>[http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/main.asp Parents' Television Council]</ref> It takes a demeaning treatment of creationists, focusing instead on the more culturally accepted theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0107lead.asp Answers in Genesis]</ref>

==References==
<References />

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Talk:Family Guy

2008-11-25T13:43:48Z

WillB: /* Official sysop request */

Information about who does drugs and who has prostituted themselves and who has slept with whom in a ''cartoon'' is ''not'' appropriate for this encyclopedia. In addition, I you reverted to a version which is full of redundancies and run-on sentences. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:Do we even need a list of all the characters? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::I would argue that it doesn't contribute a whole lot. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Do we even need an article on this? Does it satisfy [[CP:NOTE]]? uh-oh. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:31, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no idea what CP Note is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:52, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is our standard for notability, which I guess doesn't exist. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:05, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Here is a list of characters you need to add:

Joe Swanson - Joe is Peter's paraplegic friend, and is often made fun of for being so.

Cleveland Brown - Cleveland is Peter's neighbor, and portrays a typical African American male.

Herbert - Herbert is Peter's neighbor, and is known for being a pedophile. For some reason, he has not yet been taken to jail.

Mort Goldman - Mort is Peter's pharmacist, and is frequently portrayed as a typical member of the Jewish community, most notably his tendency to whine and complain.

Is it really necessary to have the criticisms first????

==Recent edits==
So that I don't seem antagonizing, I will bring this up on the talk page first: this show comes on during prime time on network TV, so there's not any profanity, unless you consider certain "mild" profanities which appear in such places as the Bible. FWIW, I agree with all the other edits. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]]

==Official sysop request==
Any sysop, could someone redo this? This is a Conservative encyclopedia, and the text seems too liberal for my taste. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a sysop [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:56, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:I presume you are talking about the edits which have already been reverted, or do you think the current text is too "liberal"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:56, 9 November 2008 (EST) Note: I'm not a sysop, but I don't see why only a sysop can deal with this issue.
:::It requires a sysop because the page is locked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:36, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::Look again it is unlocked :)--[[User:WillB|WillB]] 08:43, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::Maybe i should have rephrased that. How does one revert referenced text that, albeit liberal and anti-christian, is still referenced? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 08:20, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Edit warring ==

You are both right, so work together here. The show does "[explore] cultural and political themes that are important in the world today, as well as taking humorous approaches to past & present television shows", but don't replace the factual text which is already there. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Petition of Right

2008-11-24T21:21:45Z

WillB: add cat

The '''Petition of Right''' was a document which the British Parliament tried to get [[Charles I]] to sign. It would have limited the powers of the King in four significant ways. He could not imprison people without a valid reason, he could not force people to house soldiers in private homes, he would not impose taxes without consulting parliament, and he could not enforce martial law during peace time.

{{stub}}

[[Category:British History]]

Passover Seder

2008-11-24T21:20:37Z

WillB: add cat

On the 14th of the Hebrew month fo Nissan, the day and month of the the going out of the Children of Israel from Egypt. all has been prepared for the Passover seder, that is the ceremonial reenactment in recitation in the Jewish household. The Se'or (yeast) and the Hametz (everything that has been made with yeast) has been banished from the household, and even literally burned (b'irah).The table will be set with the ceremonial foods set on the tray:

*Zeroa = roasted shank bone of chicken or lamb bone, symbolizing the roasted Passobver lamb of Second Temple days.

*Betzah = hard boiled and roasted egg, to symbolize the lamb that was slain to satiate the Israelite family group prior to the offering of the passover lamb that the feast not be sullied by ravenous appetite.

*Maror = bitter herbs , usually horse radish or romaine lettuce to recall the Hebrews' bitter suffering in Egypt.

*Haroset = chopped apples and nuts with cinammon and wine to denote the clay and mortar with which the Hebrews worked. To be eaten later with Matzah.

*Karpas -= Parsnips or celery to be dipped 5 times in salt water (reminiscent of sweat and tears) and eaten.

*Hazeret = Horseradish and celery again to be eaten in |Matzah sandwich later.

*The three Matzot (unleavened bread) recalling the fact that there was no time for leavening on the night of the first passover of flight from Egypt. They are kept in cloth covering but the middle one is broken and part hid for the children to find and be given some money . That hidden part is called the Aphikomen.

*The wine is set for the four cups of wine, two during the ceremonial seder, the third, called the cup of Thanksgiving drunk after the meal, and the last after it.

*A special cup filled with wine, the Cup of Elijah, is set near the center of the table or at one of its corners nearest door kept slightly open. It is for the coming of Elijah to announce the Messiah. When he comes, he will drink some wine and we will know as we watch his cup and know that soon so will come the Messiah.

The aim is to recall how we were taken from Egypt amd rekindle hope in us for this generation.

After a blessing, dipping of Karpas in salt water, and the breaking and hiding of the Aphikomen, there is the Aramaic prayer called the Magid (Recite)- " This.." (head of household holding up the ceremonial plate for all to see) '.. is the bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt...Let anyone who is hungrey come in and eat, Let anyone who is needy come in and make Passover. This year we are here, next year we shall be in the Land of Israel. This year we are slaves. Next year we shall be freemen." In Aramaic, the name of the prayer is as its first words. Ha Lahma Aniya (This is the bread of affliction).

The youngest boy that is capable, then sets the tone by asking the Fier Kashes (Four Hard questions) concerning the difference of this night from all other night
This is the occasion for the head to begin the Biblical story Avadim Hayiinu(We were slaves). The story begins with us in Egypt but, with time lapses to before then with the calling of Abraham and God's promise to him, with occasional interjections from the Rabbis concerning "awakening elements".

One of these is the Four Sons - the Wise, the Wicked, the
Simple, and the Incapable by age or capacity. It is based on the Scripture "Which the Lord has commanded you". The Wise son asks, so tell him precisely, The Wicked Son repeats "has commanded YOU "- meaning in his heart, you, not me, and so excludes himself. The Simple Son also asks "What's it all about?" Make it clear to him, " With a strong hand the Lord took us out" The Incapable? "It is you who must begin with him" leading him into understanding.

Then back to the story of the calling and the redemption of the people from the hands of the Egyptians and the beginning of the lifting of the cups of wine and setting them down without drinking. Here it be noted that the ingenuity and good humor of the father is to be applied. Some oriental communities have a "stranger" with staff in hand, and a pack on his back (It is Uncle Ike in diguise) knocking at door asking to be a part. Some families, especially having newcomers and children, will follow the father and do as he does lifting the cup, never knowing "Will he drink from it this time or not?", as the father tries to trick them and keep them alert (Uncle Herman, also. He is asleep again).

All this time, the children very openly, and the grown-ups furtively, keep glancing at the cup of Elijah to see if the wine in it has diminished any, if he has come already to announce the Messiah.

Back to Israel in Egypt with the recitation, increasing in severity, and oppression of the people in labor, thoughts and conversation will intensify and associate with our modern experiences of holocaust and wanderings and longing for home; of the fulfillment in Israel, the ingathering of the modern exiles etc.

At the height of the recitation, there are the Plagues, ten in Number, and at each plague named a few drops of wine spilled into a plate - which are the tears of the weeping angels at the devastation soon to take place because of the hardness of the heart. Blood, Wild Beasts, Hail, Frogs, Destruction, Locusts, Lice, Boils, Darkness, Death of the First Born.

The response is sung by all at the table in the rousing chant of Dayainu ("It would have been enough for us!"). If He had taken us out of Egypt and not brought judgment on their gods, DAYAINU, If He had brought judgement on their gods and not killed their first born, DAYAINU, If he had killed their first born, and not given us their riches, DAYAINU. If He had given us their riches, and not split the Red Sea for us, DAYAINU... If... DAYAINU, If... DATAINU...etc. Sung with much fervor, banging on the table, clicking of utensils, babies laughing, crying, Uncle Herman now awake, odors from the kitchen, women laughing. dinner is coming soon!

Then is sung Al Ahat Kama ve Kama, "How much More!". How much greater then is our indebtedness to THE PLACE UPON US (God) that He has done all this for us - taken us out of Egypt, brought judgment on their gods, killed their first born, etc. etc.

And now all attention is riveted on the head, as he shows the Matzah, the bitter herbs, repeats the saying - In each generation one ought out to regard himself as personally having come out of Egypt, then he lifts the cup and gives praises, lauds, honors, glorifications, etc. to God for the redemption from Egypt, breaks pieces from the upper and middle Matzah, washes his hands, and all make the pre-meal sandwich of Matzah and the bitter herbs, and Haroset, the table is set (Shulchan Arucch) and all begin to eat. There is no difference between life and liturgy. After dinner, there is the drinking of the third cup (the cup of Thanksgiving) the singing of songs, the drinking of the fourth cup, more songs, and finally - The proclamatic saying by all that all has now been completed - "Nirtzah" Accepted.

===Lord's Supper and the Passover Seder===

Though it is not likely that the Lord's Supper was at an actual Passover Meal at the normative time for Passover, nevertheless it was the Passover, and the Passover Seder in particular, which provided the "material" for the Gospel narratives concerning His last supper on earth. The following elements point to this close relationship.

*Jesus sent out his disciples to prepare for the Passover which He would eat with them before he suffered Lk. 22:8. . He called the meal that they were about to eat "Passover" and eagerly desired to eat it with His disciples.Lk.22:15.

*Though Matthew and Mark report Jesus taking the bread first and then the wine and speaking of His body and His blood, Luke reports that there was also a cup drunk before the bread. The taking of cups of wine before the meal is in accord with both Jewish Sabbath sancification (kiddush), and the Passover Seder.

*The Gospels indicate that there was a meal eaten at the last supper after Jesus took the bread and saying "This is my body..."* and before Jesus took the cup saying "This is my blood...". "Likewise, after they had supped, Jesus took the cup". This is in accord with the Seder where there are two parts to the ceremony separated by the Passover meal. In the Apostle Pauls day, the Lord's Supper was still being celebrated in the context of a meal - which people where abusing, forgetting, in their ravenous behavior, the reason why they were to celebrate. (This happened in Judaism as well. The boiled and roasted egg on the passover plate, also called the Hagigah - the Festivity, is meant to represent the lamb eaten outside the temple area by the family before the Passover lamb was slain. This lamb is meant to slake the appetite of the worshippers so that when they do eat the Passover lamb, it is not eaten ravenously, but with thought as to its significance).

*In the Passover Seder, besides the frequent mention of Matzah with intent to recall the happenings of Israel in Egypt and the hasty flight from it, there are two specific referrals and focusing attention to Matzah by the father to the household. This is fairly at the beginning of the service, with the Aramaic "This is the Bread of Affliction" prayer and toward the end of the part before the meal. Jesus could well have lifted up the bread at either of these two points telling what He intended as the new meaning for the old rite - His broken body for them all. This would have set the motion for the Disciples henceforth continuing to celebrate the Passover but that under the new sign of the New Covenant which would have a new name from what the Lord was to do for them. And so, the Passover Seder would become, the Lord's Supper, and Holy Communion, and Eucharist. Instead of a once a year celebration on the 14 of the month Nissan, the "little passover" for the Christians was celebrated once a week remembering Christ, "their Passover", on the first day of the week (Sunday), the day that He rose from the dead.

*Significantly, the cup that Jesus took immediately after the meal to signify His blood "shed for you and for the many", is called the Cup of Thanksgiving. This then would be the context for His speaking of His blood shed for them. The note for disciples listening would be gratitude for what He was about to do for them -though this could only surface after the pain of losing Him. The Last Supper for the Christians would be called Thanksgiving -"Eucharist"

*There was a "sop" given by Jesus to Judas to urge him now to do his dirty work. There were, at the Passover Seder, bitters, "Maror", to remind of the bitter servitude of the children of Israel in Egypt. There was also salt water for dippings of the Maror for the same purpose. There was also the mixture known as Haroset for the same purpose - recalling mortar for Pharoah's building projects. The sop given by Jesus to Judas could well have been any of these dippings and mixtures - already laden with bitterness, which Judas had now come to continue and bring to a new plane.

*The Passover Seder was already in the form of a "sacrament". that is, it was not considered a contrivance of men for a greater purpose to be or not to be performed as considered apt. It was a command of God to be fulfilled, which He would see, and after which, the people having performed it, could say "Nirtzah" - Accepted! This is in accord with Jesus saying "Do this in Remembrance of Me" and in accordance with the fact, that from that first Lord's Supper, this "doing" continued on in the Church as an essential aspect of the worship of he people. They were "doing" what the Lord commanded to be done.

*The Passover Seder is a "home service". That is, it is not celebrated in the Temple (though in Second Temple times the lamb was slain in the Temple area), nor was it celebrated in the synagogue. The "officiant" was neither a priest (the cohen) nor a rabbi. It was the father of the household. Thus it was very much a localized affair, or from the ground up, if there were larger considerations, such as households being together because of the journey or because of poverty.The practice of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament also had this aspect of "localization" This might be seen in the reference to the seating on the "green" grass of the multitudes in groups of fifty (Gospel of Mark) at the time of the multiplication of the loaves as the early church saw in these feeding miracles of Jesus portents of the Eucharist he would institute - and thus form the precise literary forms about these events found in the gospels. They saw their celebration of the "little passover" as a continuation of the miraculous way that the Lord supplied His people. This localizing factor may well have influenced the New Testament role of the deacon - someone "in touch' with the local people of the community, well aware of their needs, who would serve them, freeing the Apostles for the serving of the Word and Prayer.

*After the meal the third cup is filled, and the Hallel (Praise)is sung beginning with the words "Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give glory, for Thy lovingkindness" (Today, other portions are sung including the Aramaic [[Had Gadya]]). After the Lord's Supper, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn, and went out.

Note: The Gospel uses the word "Artos" in Greek and "Lahma" in Aramaic meaning "bread" (and so the Apostle Paul) rather than the words for unleavened bread. But this may be a "modernization" to the later non Jewish believers and after the Christian "little passover" was more removed from the strictly Jewish Passover observance. The Greek and Aramaic New Testament Gospels would then not be the original, though they are the earliest now in our possession. This has more force if the Jerusalem School of Gospel origins is right in their assertion of an original Mishnaic Hebrew written source (or, at least, an oral Hebrew one) upon which our present Greek texts depended [http://www.js.org/Methodology/index.htm].

==See Also==

[[Haggadah]]

[[Eucharist]]

[[Had Gadya]]

[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

[[Jesus Christ]]

[[Category:Jewish History]]

Pogrom

2008-11-24T21:19:15Z

WillB: add cat

A '''pogrom''' (pronounced pah-GRUM) was an organized campaign of [[violence]] against [[Jewish]] settlements in [[Russia]] in the late 1800s.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?

2008-11-24T21:17:52Z

WillB: add cat

[[Barack Obama]] is not an accomplished writer. In fact, he's not much of a writer at all, having never published a single article under his name despite serving as president of a law journal and on the faculty for years at a law school. It took him years and a leave of absence from his job before one of his books was published late under his name.

So the mystery is this: who ghostwrote the books that were published in Obama's name?

A prominent blogger, Steve Sailer, does this comparison between Obama's friend Bill Ayers and Obama's own book:<ref>http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-bill-ayers-ghoswrite-obamas-memoir.html</ref>

:Here are similar ideas on the unreliability of family anecdotes from the opening of each book expressed in somewhat characteristic language. Ayers writes:

::As the journey to my birth was told and retold, stretched and exaggerated, it was as if the young couple had arrived by dogsled having crossed the Alps in a blinding blizzard.

:The first half of Ayers' sentence sounds rather like Dreams, but the second half is too Erma Bombeckishly plain-spoken for Obama, whose literary dignity always accompanies him.

:In contrast, Obama writes:

::... as a child I knew [my father] only through the stories that my mother and grandparents told. They all had their favorites, each one seamless, burnished smooth from repeated use. ... That’s how all the stories went-compact, apocryphal, told in rapid succession in the course of one evening, then packed away for months, sometimes years, in my family’s memory.

There has been a [[computer]] comparison of [[Barack Obama|Obama's]] [[autobiography]] with that of his [[friend]]'s, the [[Terrorism|terrorist]] [[William Ayers|Bill Ayers]]. This analysis finds support for the [[theory]] that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's [[book]]:<ref>http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm</ref>

:In assessing the signature of [[sample]] passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he [[Process|processed]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Barack Obama]]

Origins theory

2008-11-24T21:16:33Z

WillB: add cat

{{stub}}

An '''origins theory''' is a [[theory]] that explains origins.

== Origin of the universe ==
The two major competing theories of the origin of the universe are [[creation ex nihilo]], and the [[Big Bang]]. In addition, some people believe the universe has always existed, and therefore has no "origin" at all.

==Origin of life==
The two primary views on the origin of life are [[creationism]] and [[evolutionism]]. Creationism holds that life was deliberately designed in a number of different forms which are unrelated to each other, and that these life forms were designed and created with the capacity to reproduce and vary somewhat in order to adapt to their environment. Evolutionism holds that all life evolved from a single, simple lifeform through the process of variation and selection.

=== Issues surrounding the origin of life ===
The primary point of disagreement over the origin of life is whether or not all life is related ([[universal common ancestry]]), and whether or not variation and natural selection account for ''all'' diversity in life. Creationists argue that there is insufficient evidence of common ancestry to justify belief in it, and argue that many attributes of life are too complex or [[irreducibly complex]] to have evolved. Thus they do not dispute that ''some'' lifeforms are related or that ''some'' [[microevolution]] occurs. They only deny that ''all'' adaptive diversity in life can be explained through evolution alone. Evolutionists argue that there is sufficient evidence of common ancestry to justify belief, and that life is not too complex to have evolved.

[[Category:Theories]]

Muslim

2008-11-24T21:14:25Z

WillB: add cat

A '''Muslim''' is someone who is "[[Submission|submissive]] to the will of [[God]]".<ref> [http://www.hilalplaza.com/islamic-architecture/ Islamic Architecture - Principles] </ref>
In particular, the term ''Muslim'' refers to an adherent of [[Islam]].<ref>The word "Muslim" (or "Moslem") refers to one who submits to God and believes in Islam. [http://media.www.crusaderonline.com/media/storage/paper990/news/2001/10/12/UndefinedSection/What-Do.Muslims.Believe-2470847.shtml What do Muslims believe?] </ref> True Muslims must honor the ''Shahada'', both submitting to the will of Allah and accepting the prophet Muhammad as His apostle.

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Islam]]

My Muslim faith

2008-11-24T21:12:30Z

WillB: add cat

Senator Obama referred to "my Muslim faith" in an interview, excerpted on YouTube.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I ABC News] interview</ref>

*Obama: Let's not play games. What I was suggesting - you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and you're absolutely right that that has not come at my ...
*Interviewer: [breaking in] Christian faith
*Obama: [stuttering] ma - my Christian faith ... and what I am saying is that he hasn't suggested that I'm a Muslim ...
*Interviewer: [speaking over] the connection, right
*Obama: ... and I think that his campaign upper echelons have not either. What I think is fair to say is that coming out of the Republican camp there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith, something that I find deeply offensive and that has been going on for a pretty long ... [end of clip]

Supporters of Obama have suggested that Obama was talking about a false allegation of Obama's "Muslim faith," but that still does not explain his comfortable use of the phrase.
A Christian is not likely to refer to "my Muslim faith," and Obama's comfortable use of the phrase "my Muslim faith" suggests he is a Muslim rather than a Christian.

The ''[[Washington Times]]'', founded by [[ecumenical]] religious leader [[Rev. Moon]], said the phrase was a slip of the tongue.<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/ Obama's verbal slip fuels his critics] Sunday, September 7, 2008 </ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Barack Obama]]

Religious rights of teachers

2008-11-24T21:10:32Z

WillB: add cat

The '''religious rights of teachers''' in America have often come in conflict with local governments and with teachers' unions intent on promoting a specific political agenda.

== Discrimination Against Religious Teachers By Unions ==

Despite the fact that teachers' unions are theoretically supposed to protect the rights of members, religious teachers sometimes find that the opposite is true. William Morgan, an employee of the Mentor Public Schools in Ohio, objected to having his dues spent to promote causes which went against his faith (specifically, the union's pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality positions.) As a result, Morgan found himself subjected to annual and intrusive questioning by the Ohio Education Association, as did other Ohio teachers with similar religious objections. When his request for a religious accomodation was denied, Morgan filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2003, the EEOC found that the OEA was violating the rights of Morgan and other teachers of faith by denying them the right to abstain from contributing to causes to which they personally objected.<ref>http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2687</ref>, <ref>http://www.nrtw.org/foundation-action/janfeb04.pdf</ref>.

== Discrimination Against Religious Teachers By School Districts ==

'''Bruce Bennett vs. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District'''

Bruce Bennett, a public-school teacher with degrees in Biblical studies and social science, filed a complaint against the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District in 2004, after being denied the opportunity to teach classes from a Christian perspective, including one critical of evolution <ref>http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/continuing/page3.html</ref>. Bennett was denied the opportunity to teach for six years, despite the fact that other courses of a religious (albeit non-Christian) nature were approved, including courses on Tarot reading and ancient Egyptian magic<ref>http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/continuing/page10.html</ref>. Faced with a potential lawsuit, the district acknowledged that they could not lawfully discriminate against Bennett based on the content of his courses <ref>http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=2796</ref>. As of October, 2004, Bennett was allowed to offer his courses at the community center.

'''John Freshwater vs. OEA'''

John Freshwater is an eighth-grade science teacher from Mt. Vernon, Ohio. In June, 2008, he was fired from his position for refusing to conceal his Christian faith, thereby becoming a figure in the ongoing debate about academic honesty and the religious rights of teachers.

Freshwater had been a teacher and wrestling coach at Mt. Vernon Middle School since 1987. Despite being well liked and admired by his students <ref>http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3817</ref>, he experienced friction with the school district on a number of occasions, when the district used procedural technicalities to prevent him from questioning or criticizing the theory of evolution. <ref> http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/04/22/2006_complaint.pdf</ref>.

The conflict that eventually led to the termination of Freshwater's conflict centered around religious materials he kept in his classroom. The school district demanded that students not be exposed to or allowed to access the Bible or the Ten Commandments. <ref>http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/04/22/District_letter_4.7.08.pdf</ref>,
<ref>http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/04/22/District_letter_4.14.08.pdf</ref>.
Although Freshwater attempted to comply with the district's ultimatums, his faith compelled him to stand up for his right to keep a personal Bible on his desk. <ref>http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/04/22/Freshwater_Response_4.16.08.pdf</ref> The district disagreed, and fired him. In so doing, they cited accusations that Freshwater had "branded students" with the image of a cross. Freshwater clarified that he was demonstrating the function of an electronic device by marking students' arms with an "X," a demonstration that caused no harm to the students in question and is common in science classes. <ref>http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3817</ref>

== Discrimination Against Religious Schools ==

While Christian teachers are not censored and forbidden to express their religious views at private, Christian schools, they are nonetheless discriminated against by the larger educational system--often at the expense of their students. In 2005, a group of students from Southern California evangelical schools filed suit against the University of California for religious discrimination. Despite having extremely high grades and test scores, they argued that the university's refusal to certify many of the courses offered by their high school amounted to discrimination. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/national/20christian.html?ei=5090&en=887978c7a8153d97&ex=1290142800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
</ref>. The case, ''Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns,'' culminated in a ruling by [[activist judge]] S. James Otero, who sided with the University <ref>http://www.dailycal.org/article/101093/judge_backs_uc_on_admissions_requirements</ref>. Otero agreed with the defendants' argument that the textbooks used by Cavalry Chapel Christian School were unacceptable because they reflected a Christian viewpoint.

==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:1; column-count:1;">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Religious persecution]]

Roundheads

2008-11-24T21:08:58Z

WillB: add cat

{{stub}}'''The Roundheads''' were supporters of [[Parliament]] and [[Oliver Cromwell]] during the [[English Civil War]] (1642 - 1646). They opposed the Royalists.

Their name derives from their round metal helmets.

[[Category:British History]][[Category:British Politics]]

SS Great Britain

2008-11-24T21:05:02Z

WillB: add cat

The '''SS Great Britain''' is a iron steamship built in the British city of [[Bristol]] in 1843. It was built by the Great Western Steamship Company under the supervision of [[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]]. This ground-breaking vessell set the standards for ship-building in the modern era.<ref>http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/ssGreatBritain.htm</ref>

At the time of her construction, she was the largest ship afloat and the first ocean going to be propella driven.

It was built for transatlantic passenger travel and was launched on the 19th of July, 1843 in the presence of [[Prince Albert]]. <ref>http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/maritime/SS%20Great%20Britain.htm</ref>. Her first transatlantic trip was on the 26th July, 1845, with a crossing that took only 14 days.

<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Territory

2008-11-24T21:02:53Z

WillB: add cat

A '''territory''' is an area of land or sea which is claimed by a [[nation]].

[[Category:Geography]]

Spanish Flu

2008-11-24T21:02:24Z

WillB: add cat

{{stub}}'''The Spanish Flu''' from 1918 - 1919 was a deadly strain of [[Influenza]] A virus which killed twenty million civilians and soldiers during [[World_War_I|World War I]]. This [[pandemic]] killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide, more people in one year than the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Indeed, more people died from the Flu than from battle injuries in the war. The flu did not originate in Spain but the Allies called it the “Spanish Flu.” It was called the Spanish Flu because it received greater press attention in Spain than anywhere else in the world. More than one-fifth of the world's population was infected, in large part because of the close quarters of men living together in army camps, and because it was at the end of the war, as they returned they brought the disease back to the world.
 This flu was most deadly for those in the healthy age groups, between 20-40 where most flu deaths occur in the elderly or the very young. The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. <ref>1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics: Jeffery Taubenberge, David Morens [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/05-0979.htm] </ref>
 While the 1918 Pandemic was particularly devistating to communities and individuals, viral, host and environmental factors were
at cause. While many modern medicines such as [[vaccines]] and drugs are now available a large pandemic could still cause >100 million deaths worldwide because of increased travel and lengthy lead times to make the life saving drugs.
==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Open circuit

2008-11-24T20:57:53Z

WillB: add cat

{{stub}}An '''open circuit''' is a [[circuit]] that does not have a complete connection between the two sides of the battery. As a result, [[electric current]] does not flow. An open circuit is contrasted with a 'closed' circuit, in which current does flow through the connection. <ref>Bird, John, ''Electrical and Electronic Principles and Technology (3rd edition)''. Newnes, 2007</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Electronics]]

Nut (fruit)

2008-11-24T20:53:07Z

WillB: add cat

A '''nut''' is, technically, a type of dry [[fruit]] in which one or two [[seed]]s is contained, and the ovary wall hardens when the fruit matures, while the seeds remain unaffixed to the wall. Nuts are generally high in a variety of nutrients, notably protein and fat.

[[Category:Fruits]]

Micronesia

2008-11-24T20:51:54Z

WillB: add cat

Micronesia [ˌmaɪkroʊˈniʒə] (help·info), from the Greek mikros (μικρός) (meaning small) and nesos (νῆσος) (meaning island), is a subregion of [[Oceania]], comprising hundreds of small islands in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. The [[Philippines]] lie to the northwest, [[Indonesia]], [[Papua New Guinea]] and [[Melanesia]] to the west and south, and [[Polynesia]] to the east.

[[Category:Geography]]

Monosodium glutamate

2008-11-24T20:50:06Z

WillB: add cat

'''Monosodium Glutamate''' (also known as MSG) is a flavor enhancer that is commonly used in some Asian foods.Though it is generally recognized as safe<ref>[[FDA|US FDA]], [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html FDA and Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)]</ref> by the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (the agency which regulates the usage of such additives in the [[United States]]), MSG has been implicated as a cause [[autism]] and [[ADHD]] in children, as well as many other ailments.<ref>Laleva.org, [http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/03/autism_and_adhd_linked_to_addictive_food_additive.html Autism and ADHD Linked to Addictive Food Additive]</ref> Some claim it is possible addictive.

==References==
<references/>

{{stub}}

[[Category:Chemical Compounds]]

Marcus Garvey

2008-11-24T20:47:46Z

WillB: add cat

{{stub}}'''Marcus Garvey''' (1887–1940) founded the ''Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League'' (UNIA-ACL). Born in [[Jamaica]], Garvey became famous as a proponent of the Back-to-Africa movement, encouraging African Americans and other members of the African [[diaspora]] to return to [[Africa]].

[[Category:Activists]]

Carl A. Anderson

2008-11-24T20:44:48Z

WillB: add cat

'''Carl A. Anderson''' is the current Supreme Knight of the [[Knights of Columbus]].

Anderson's wife's name is Dorian and they have five children.

In 1998, [[Pope John Paul II]] appointed Anderson to the [[Pontifical Academy for Life]] and in 2000, Pope John Paul II named him a Knight of the [[Order of St. Gregory the Great]].

[[category:Catholic Leaders]]

Moore's Law

2008-11-24T20:43:57Z

WillB: add cat

'''Moore's Law''' is the term commonly used to describe the 1965 prediction by Intel Corporation co-founder [[Gordon Moore]] that the number of transistors on a chip will double about every two years. <ref>[http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm] Intel page on Moore's Law</ref>

==Background==

When Moore in 1965 observed that the number of components on integrated circuits seemed to double regularly, this fact was known to many people working in the area. Indeed, it took over a decade, during which Moore had become the co-founder of Intel and its President and CEO, before this observation was called Moore's Law. <ref>http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/</ref>

==Examples Using Intel Processors==

The following table shows the progression of the number of transistors embedded in a single Intel Chip over time<ref>http://www.intel.com/technology/timeline.pdf</ref>:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Intel Chip Model
! # of Transistors
|-
| 1971
| ''4004''
| 2,300
|-
| 1974
| ''8080''
| 4,500
|-
| 1978
| ''8086''
| 29,000
|-
| 1982
| ''i286''
| 134,000
|-
| 1985
| ''i386''
| 275,000
|-
| 1989
| ''i486''
| 1,200,000
|-
| 1993
| ''Pentium''
| 3,100,000
|-
| 1995
| ''Pentium Pro''
| 5,500,000
|-
| 1997
| ''Pentium II''
| 7,500,000
|-
| 1999
| ''Pentium III''
| 9,500,000
|-
| 2001
| ''Pentium 4 / Xeon''
| 42,000,000
|-
| 2002
| ''Pentium M''
| 55,000,000
|-
| 2002
| ''Itanium 2''
| 220,500,000
|-
| 2005
| ''Pentium D''
| 291,000,000
|-
| 2007
| ''Xeon''
| 582,000,000
|-
| 2007
| ''Xeon (Penryn)''
| 820,000,000
|}

==Additional Reading==

[http://www.intel.com/technology/timeline.pdf Sixty Years of the Transistor - Intel] 
[http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/ The Lives and Death of Moore's Law]

[[category:Computer Science]]

Monosodium glutamate

2008-11-24T02:49:55Z

WillB: copied from Food additives and addiction (thanks helpjax and foxtrot

MSG

2008-11-24T02:41:12Z

WillB: redirect

#REDIRECT [[Monosodium glutamate]]

Monosodium glutamate

2008-11-24T02:39:02Z

WillB: new msg page

'''Monosodium Glutamate''' (also known as MSG) is a flavor enhancer that is commonly used in some Asian foods. It is possible addictive.

{{stub}}

Talk:Food additives and addiction

2008-11-24T02:34:36Z

WillB:

Food for thought (pun intended): the FDA has rated MSG as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) and its "acceptable daily intake" is "not specified", which is about as good as it gets. The UN and WHO both place MSG alongside salt and wheat.

I'm a little suspect of that reference. It gets its information from a book, and the author of the book (who doesn't seem to have any notoriety; he doesn't even have the bio page of his own website finished yet) just read a bunch of studies that other people made, and decided that MSG causes autism. While I haven't read the book, I'm highly suspect that this random guy figured out something that scientists can't seem to figure out, and on top of it, that the FDA doesn't know it yet. There's also (according to Amazon) a chapter in his book about "the benefit of a natural zero calorie sweetener and a natural hormone proven to reduce breast and prostate cancer". I think I hear a duck. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:MSG is still addictive. Chinese restaurants have to say "No MSG" because people are afraid of consuming it.-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::Can you find a citation for that? The FDA doesn't seem to think so. And people being afraid to consume it doesn't mean anything. See [[ad populum]]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:21, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::(ec)People being afraid of it is not indicative of being addictive. I think what you're talking about is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_restaurant_syndrome "Chinese restaurant syndrome] which is kind of an urban legend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor)#Health_concerns}]. The restaurants say "No MSG" because people are afraid, yes, but that doesn't mean the people who are afraid are informed. Life's a little rough over here right now, so I'm not sure if that really makes much sense. I hope it helps, though. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:::(edit conflict) I have added two quotes from doctors about MSG while you were writing this comment, I believe. Also, I think you are confused in your edit comment about "regulation and food scares". There is a big difference in liberals unduly calling for bans on [[trans fats]] and conservatives calling for regulation of poison and highly addictive drugs in food. Remember that the D in FDA is there for a reason: drugs. Not acceptable in food, in playgrounds or elsewhere. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 21:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)
::::Perhaps we should create an article on MSG to explain who finds it addictive and who doesn't and why it could be a bad thing if it is (remember caffeine is one of the most addictive substances there is but no one is crying for Starbucks to be regulated) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 21:34, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Pope Pius IX

2008-11-23T21:32:18Z

WillB:

'''His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, Vicar of Christ''' (May 13, 1792-February 7, 1878) - born '''Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti''' - was the [[Pope]] and leader of the [[Catholic church]] from June 16, 1846 to February 7, 1878 the longest reign in Church history. He convened the [[First Vatican Council]], fought [[secularism]] in a rebellious [[Italy]] and an increasingly progressive [[France]], and became a [[saint]] during the papacy of [[Pope John Paul II]].

[[Category:Popes|Pius IX, Pope]]

Talk:Liberal media elite

2008-11-23T14:39:50Z

WillB: 3 weeks

I got a week block for being disruptive because I added a request for citation to this article so that it would comply with the commandments. I did not wish to be disruptive but I do feel that all articles outside of the essay space should have at least one citation in them (and probably more when they have a list of characteristics like this one). It has been a week and there are still no citations but since I do not want to step on Bugler's toes again I will not add the request back to the article I just wanted to make sure my motives for the request in the first place were understood and to again request that Bugler add a cite. Thank you --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 12:18, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:Since it has been two weeks since I first requested a cite for at least one of the items in this article so that it could comply with the commandments can anyone tell me how to request that this be moved to the essay space? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 21:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Since it has been 3 weeks since I first requested a cite and the last time I edited the article I got a weeks vacation I will add the move request here. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 09:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)

{{move|Essay Liberal media elite}}

Viewpoint neutrality

2008-11-23T14:33:45Z

WillB: fixing link

The '''viewpoint neutrality''' principle prevents public universities from discriminating against student organizations on the basis of the views they express. For example, hey can't sponsor a "[[gay rights]]" student group while banning a Christian group. Students are permitted to withhold activity fees when such discrimination exists.

{{quotation|In the area of university sponsored
speech, the Court has decided two vitally
important cases, in 1995 and in 2000, which both clearly
held that universities must remain viewpoint neutral when
funding student organizations. Viewpoint neutrality
means that public universities, in making their decisions
about funding, may not take into consideration what
position or opinion a student or group of students stands
for or advocates. [http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-2.pdf Free Speech - The Basics] - [[FIRE]] }}

See:
*[[Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)]]
*[[Board of Regents v. Southworth| University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000)]]

See also:
*[[Academic freedom]]

Antichrist

2008-11-23T03:52:44Z

WillB: Undo revision 566719 by Rfreeman (Talk) removing parody

Antichrist

2008-11-23T03:51:47Z

WillB: Undo revision 566721 by Rfreeman (Talk)

The '''Antichrist''' in [[Premillenialism]] will persecute faithful Christians during the [[Tribulation]].

==Etymology==

The word '''Antichrist''' comes from the [[Greek]] αντί-χριστος (''anti''-''khristos''), meaning ''opposite of Christ''. The Greek word ''anti'' can also mean 'instead of' or "equal to, like" so that the phrase can also be interpreted as meaning ''in place of, or like, Christ'' so while opposing Christ the antichrist will try to appear to be like Christ. Some Christians believe that the use in John refers to a single being that will appear in the [[End Times]]. This view is most commonly found among [[Premillennialism|premillennialist Christians]]. In modern useage, the term is usually used to refer to one who is pure evil.

== The Antichrist in the Bible ==
The following verses are the only verses which directly use the word Antichrist ([[KJV]])

:I John 2:18 'as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists'

:I John 2:22 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieith the Father and the Son.'

:I John 4:3 'And every spirit that confesseth not that [[Jesus]] Christ is come in the flesh is not of [[God]]: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

:2 John 7: 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'

Based on the lack of direct references, some Christians argue that the Bible refers only to a ''generalized concept'' of Antichrist, applicable to anybody who is 'against Christ', not to a particular person. Moreover, such 'antichrists' were already present in the world nearly two thousand years ago. Other Christian, such as the [[Catholic Church]] and many [[Protestant]] denominations, have argued that these verses mainly prefigure the actual Antichrist and that one can see a single unifying Antichrist figure with the proper exegetical methods if one looks at the books of [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] and [[Book of Revelation|Revelations]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm</ref> So while there is a spirit of antiChrist, there is also one AntiChrist who is to come.

The Antichrist is often associated with, and in some intrepretations considered equivilent to, the Beast of Revelation or the Man of Sin referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
==Islam==
[[Islamic]] theology also teaches of an antichrist-like figure known as [[Dajjal]].

==Barack Obama==
There has been significant speculation that the antichrist is president-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. Evidence for this is in Obama's similarities with biblical descriptions of the antichrist<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71144</ref>. For example:

* He will come as a man of Peace (Obama promises peace in Iraq, but defeat for the United States)
* He will come mounted on a white Female horse (Obama's mother was white, and had six African husbands)<ref>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread329728/pg1</ref>
* He will come to deceive (Obama says he's a Christian but in fact he was born and raised a Muslim, practices the Islamic religion, prays Friday’s facing Mecca)<ref>http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/</ref>
* He will make himself the most powerful man on earth (President of the United States is arguably the position of most power)
* He will try to destroy the Jewish People and Israel (Obama has said he loves the Arabs (specifically Palestinians), hates Israel and Jews, and admires Hitler)<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110307.html</ref>
* Obama hails from a Chicago whose zipcode is 60606 (666 is the number of the Beast according to Revelation)<ref>http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message483746/pg1</ref><ref>http://www.anti-christ.com/?p=25</ref>
* He will present himself as good and righteous but in fact violence is in his heart
* Obama will help Al Qaeda, thereby bringing about great destruction<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71144</ref>
* Obama is the “King of the South” predicted in Daniel Chapter 11 (Kenya is south of Jerusalem)
* Obama comes to implant Muslim Sharia Law upon America<ref>http://o.bamapost.com/</ref><ref>http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=COGH5LyTtJMCFSQbagodB1YBCw</ref>

==References==
<References/>
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:New Testament]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Plurality opinion

2008-11-23T03:49:12Z

WillB: /* What? */

==What?==
Is it just me, or is this sentence/article missing a few words? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)

the sentance reads ok to me , but its a bit confusing as written. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was ''missing''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Plurality opinion

2008-11-23T03:42:19Z

WillB: rewrite and cite revert or improve as needed

The '''Plurality opinion''' is the opinion supported by the majority of [[justices]] that agree to the decision but when not all of the supporting justices agree with the legal reasoning behind it.

It is the controlling opinion when no majority opinion exists such as in the case of [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] <ref>http://www.prochoice.org/policy/get_informed_active/glossary.html#plurality</ref>

[[Category:United States Government]]

Speech codes

2008-11-23T03:23:50Z

WillB: /* University Speech Codes */ added cite

'''Speech codes''' are restrictions on [[speech]]. They are often imposed by institutions on their members (such as corporate employers on their employees or universities on their students and staff) or by governments on their citizens. Some speech codes are more restrictive than others.

{{cquote|The feminists are actively promoting college speech codes to prohibit what they call discriminatory or harassing speech. Of course, jokes are not allowed because feminists have no sense of humor. Nearly 400 colleges and universities have these anti-First Amendment speech regulations, about a third of which target mere "advocacy of offensive or outrageous viewpoints or biased ideas."

''--[http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1996/dec96/psrdec96.html The Phyllis Schlafly Report, December 1996]''}}

==University Speech Codes==
In recent years, Speech Codes have also been implemented in major North American colleges and universities; For example, Northeastern University in Boston's ''Appropriate Use of Computer and Network Resources Policy''<ref>http://www.thefire.org/index.php/codes/2648</ref> prohibits students from using the university's information systems or facilities to send any message that “in the sole judgment of the University” is “intolerant” or “offensive.” And Colorado State University’s ''Residence Hall Handbook''<ref>http://www.housing.colostate.edu/halls/handbook.pdf</ref> bans "[E]xpressions of hostility against a person or property because of a person’s race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, ability, age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation".

Various organizations such as the ''Foundation for Individual Rights in Education'' (or ''FIRE'') have been established to oppose such trend.<ref>http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4851.html?PHPSESSID=914a3b6b4bcf99b2035681dcc8d19b22</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.thefire.org/ Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
*[http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/ ''Indoctrinate U'', a documentry on university speech codes]
*[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=218 DiscoverTheNetworks.org - Political Correctness, Appeasement and Speech Codes in Academia]
[[category:politics]]

Battered woman syndrome

2008-11-23T03:17:40Z

WillB:

'''Battered woman syndrome''' is a feminist legal theory that states that because of possible domestic violence a woman should not be held responsible the violent crime they have been charged with.
{{cquote|The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime. The feminists are even pushing the Catharine Mackinnon fantasy that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless an affirmative, sober, explicit verbal consent can be proved.

The feminists want the action of a battered woman who kills her husband to be considered as normal. They want us to believe that killing a man in his sleep can be excused as self-defense. They want to establish a license for women to kill their allegedly abusive spouses.

''--[http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1996/dec96/psrdec96.html The Phyllis Schlafly Report, December 1996]''}}

Battered woman syndrome

2008-11-23T03:17:02Z

WillB: Making into a stub instead of a quote

Talk:Liberal media elite

2008-11-17T02:26:22Z

WillB:

User talk:PatV

2008-11-11T02:54:46Z

WillB:

Hi. My name is Patrick. I live in Lynchburg, VA.

{{Welcome}}

Did you grow up there? And if you did what high school did you go to(I graduated from JF in Spring 2002)--[[User:WillB|WillB]] 21:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)