Talk:Main Page/archive61

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

McCain Offers Praise for Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Timetable

Sourced from Fox News, of all places. --DinsdaleP 12:43, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Maths Marks

The article clearly addresses the claim about SAT scores in the second last paragraph. NormanS 21:00, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

It pretends to address the claim, but doesn't really. Boys do well on the math SAT in far higher percentages than girls do, as cite to the SAT data show. Nothing in the NY Times article can explain that, and this widely known phenonemon disproves the thesis of the article and the study.--Aschlafly 21:40, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Labour Party vs. Conservative Party in Britain

As happy as I am about the result, I think there are some misconceptions in the front-page post here that as an Englishman I can correct. Labour were beaten by the Scottish National Party, not the Conservatives, who are sadly extremely unlikely to take over the Scottish or Welsh governments. Also, our next election isn't due until probably 2010, so a change in government isn't "imminent".

Also, it's worth pointing out that, unfortunately, the Conservative party in the UK are so far to the left that they are arguably closer to your Democrat party than to American Conservatives. Don't be taken in by the name...

Godspeed, Mike MikeR 22:55, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, someone really ought to change this, the SNP are actually more left wing than Labour. (unsigned)

You make some interesting points, but I don't see any way to improve the headline and you did not suggest any. "Imminent" is the best term for the very next election, regardless of when Gordon Brown (in self-serving manner) decides that to be. I welcome a better term if you have one.
You're right that the Conservative Party in Britain pales in comparison to U.S. conservatives, and that the Scottish National Party is not the Conservative Party, but the linked article makes clear that voters were repudiating the leftist policies on abortion and other issues in a conservative manner. Polls indicate likewise. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:27, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
If they were repudiating leftist policies, why did they vote for the **further left**, SNP? And as for abortion, parties do not have official policies on those issues in the UK. They are left to free votes in the Commons. --KimSell 16:45, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
The following would make sense to your British readers: Humiliating loss of safe Glasgow seat bodes ill for Labour's general election prospects. --Frieda 09:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Good suggestion, but why does your headline omit credit for conservative values? The linked article did.--Aschlafly 11:13, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Conservative take-over of all of Britain is wrong, because the Welsh and Scottish governments are extremely unlikely to fall under Conservative control any time in the forseeable future, so I would change that to something more like "suggests an imminent conservative victory in the next general election." The way that it's written at the moment risks offending some readers from the other home nations. Even then it's a bit tenuous though. The Conservative candidate was soundly beaten by Labour in this election, and as much as I wish things like abortion were an election issue here in Britain, the fact is we're now so far to the left that it's off the radar for most people, and the reason Labour are doing so badly comes down mostly to the economy, and mistakes like dropping the 10% tax band. Even our Conservative party supports abortion and foetal stem-cell research :( MikeR 12:36, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
OK, I'll revise it per your helpful comments. Thanks for the insights. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:45, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
That's not a correct interpretation either. The Scottish Nationalist Party, while being a centre-left party and therefore in no way representing conservative values over Labour, is primarily interested in further devolution of power from London to the Scottish Parliament, and the independence of Scotland within the UK Commonwealth. As such, it actually represents a threat to the very idea of all of Britain, as their platform would devolve Scotland out of the UK to become an independent nation. And the ouster of the Labour Party from their Glasgow East seat represents not only a move toward Scottish independence, but also, as pointed out above, a complete rejection of the Conservatives as well as Labour. So this result represents something very different indeed from that portrayed on the Main Page story. Finally, the suggested headline by Frieda above would work very well - if you read the article you would see that Labour might indeed be under threat nationally from the Conservative Party in the next general election, but they lost this particular election for entirely different, more regional issues that have nothing to do with being more or less conservative (note lower case 'c'). The Conservative Party has never had a base in Scotland and likely never will. EngelUmpocker 13:12, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Your determination to deny conservative values is remarkable. The article behind the headline expressly states, "Many in the predominantly Roman Catholic district have turned against Labour and what they say are policies that support embryo research and access to abortions." The election was a referendum on leftist positions on social issues, and also perhaps also on local autonomy, which is also a conservative issue.--Aschlafly 13:27, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I should like to add some comments. 1: the SNP are not known as 'the Tartan Tories' for nothing. And 2: for historical reasons the Conservative Party has not done well in recent electoral contests. The vote for the SNP was not neccessarily a vote for SNP policies; more likely it was a protest vote against Labour given to the party perceived as being the most likely to defeat Labour. And 3: the general election would be for the government of the entire UK, so Andy's comments were all perfectly valid. Bugler 15:48, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
They havent been known as the Tartan Tories for quite some time now. In power, their policies have been to the left of the Labour Party. For instance, they have continued redistribution of wealth in the forms of prescription fees being cancelled, student fees being removed and increased universal health care access to mental health services. There is simply no way you can spin an SNP win as a win for conservatism and remain an honest commentator. Lets look at how the SNP describe themselves.. "A left leaning party.." --KimSell 16:53, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Your dispute is with the article that I quoted, not with us. As Bugler points out, voters reject an incumbent by voting for the person with the greatest chance of ousting him. The election was a referendum on the leftist Labour Party, and it suffered a humiliating defeat. Conservatives are ahead of the leftists in the polls in England, and even a conservative mayor was elected in the leftist stronghold of London. Please don't try to deny the truth here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:40, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy is quite right in the above. Religion plays a vitally important part in Scottish politics, both Protestant and Catholic, and the steady erosion of Britain's moral values under Labour's campaign of liberalization in the last 10 years played a major part in the current mood of discontent across the nation. Make no mistake, while this wasn't an election that favoured Britain's (left-leaning) Conservative party, it was a victory for Christian conservative values. Anyway, thank you for making the amendment Andy. MikeR 17:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks much for your insights, Mike. One of my biggest personal benefits from this site has been learning more about the U.K., from comments like yours.--Aschlafly 19:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Man dead after shoot-out at Christian radio station

Yikes!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=193578

Scary and sad that someone chooses to end their life this way, but let's be thankful no one else was hurt or killed. Jinxmchue 01:20, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Main Page article?

I came across this news article and found it interesting. Studies from The Center for Media and Public Affairs shows that over the last few weeks, news outlets (including those traditionally branded as "liberal" such as ABC, CNN, and NBC) have aired harsher criticism of Obama than McCain. The link is as follows http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

I found the article unpersuasive. It counted as a "negative" report on Obama that some white voters were not supporting him. That hardly counts as critical reporting. Negative reporting about Obama would consist of describing him as a completely inexperienced huckster who can do little more than read from a teleprompter. We haven't seen such critical reporting yet.--Aschlafly 19:12, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Have we seen such critical reporting about McCain anywhere, at least among news programs? I don't know how much this study should count for (probably not a lot), but it seems to me that if it evaluates the two candidates by the same standards, the result says something.--Frey 19:56, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Update on Church Shooting: Shooter Hated Christianity

Update on this story: the gunman did not oppose Christianity, but rather opposed the liberal views of the church he attacked, a Unitarian Universalist congregation, which includes some individuals who identify as Christian. In a letter, he specifically said he hated liberals and gays. He did not support the church's liberal attitudes toward social issues. As for the comment of an acquaintance who said he reacted strongly to her being a Christian, that is really hearsay at this point and is less indicative of his motives than his pre-shooting letter [1] from the Associated Press. -- CPlantin 8:40, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/27/neighbors-accused-shooter-everyones-friend-hated-c/

Yes, please change the tag line for this story. It was obviously premature to state it that way. In fact, it is entirely wrong and intentionally misleading to label the shooting as anti-Christian.

It may be worth updating the story.

--Benp 21:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

No surprise there. Thanks for the update, which I've posted.--Aschlafly 21:56, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

"A gunman opposed to Christianity has killed two adults and wounded seven others..." In case you didn't notice, it was not a Christian church. It was Unitarian. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 05:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting comment, but I doubt that distinction mattered to the gunman. The headline is correct as written.--Aschlafly 07:54, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
According to more updated news from the Knoxville newspaper, the gunman was not necessarily targeting Christianity or religion in general, but rather the political advocacy of the Unitarian Church. The gunman said in his note that he targeted the church "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." [2] The headline on the news page of Conservapedia is currently incorrect and it should be changed. Insisting that it continue to imply that the gunman's motivation was his opposition to Christianity is an obvious attempt to make it look like Christians are being persecuted. That is certainly not the case here and if anything, Adkisson is an apparent conservative who is at odds with liberals and homosexuals to such a degree that he would resort to violence. Adkisson also stated to a police officer that if he couldn't get to the leaders of the liberal movement, he could at least get to those who voted them into office, implying of course that the liberal Unitarians were those voters. (same newspaper story as above) --CPlantin 22:10, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
It's entirely possible that the gunman hated religion in general; however, the story simply confirms accounts by his neighbors that any mention of Christianity made him hostile. --Benp 10:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


They're quickly sanitizing the linked article. The title now claims that Adkisson "questioned Christianity" rather than "hating Christianity." If they're going to cover that up, they should probably remember to change the URL, too--that still affirms that he "hated Christianity." ("neighbors-accused-shooter-everyones-friend-hated-c")
Me, I'd say that a guy who shoots up a church has issues with religion that go a little bit beyond "questioning." --Benp 10:57, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Other media reports are saying he "hated liberals", and that the church he targeted was pro-gay rights, so it may be more complex than we can know right now. However, police have found a 4 page document with his thoughts and motives, so I'm sure it will be better understood very soon. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
"Adkisson [the shooter] said he was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job and how much he hated the liberal movement..." (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/) --makido 11:12, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, this is becoming a very odd and very sad story as more details emerge. Here's a link to CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html Darkmind1970 11:21, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, looks like another uneducated conservative loser with access to a gun thought he would solve his problems by shooting a few liberals.[3]--Frisch 11:26, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
"Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.”" Sounds like a heck of a guy...AliceBG 11:42, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
USA Today is going with the same story on the motivation being a frustrated job search and a hatred of liberals. This is ironic because the CP page on Unitarian Universalism calls it "a liberal association which describes itself as a religion", and seems to agree with the gunman's choice of targets. The headline is not "correct as written", and should be revised ASAP to avoid being misleading. However, if Unitarian Universalism is a church as Mr. Schlafly suggests, then the article on it should be corrected as well. --DinsdaleP 11:46, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
I dispute the assumption that Adkisson is a conservative. A real conservative wouldn't be blaming others for his own inability to find a job. It sounds more like he was angry at the world for his own problems, and blaming anyone and everyone--God, liberals, whoever came to mind. "Violently angry at liberals" does not equal "conservative." --Benp 11:48, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
"Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.”" (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/) If he disliked liberals in generals, and disliked gays, I think the proper conclusion is that he was conservatively-minded. Whether he holds to your specific conservative ideals seems irrelevant. Conservatives are not immune from being out of work, nor are they immune from being frustrated about it. --makido 12:15, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) By that same logic, someone who hates everyone is conservative (because they don't like liberals) AND liberal (because they don't like conservatives.) Again: conservatism is more than simply saying "I hate liberals." --Benp 12:22, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

But not on this webpage, and what we have here is a bald "No True Scotsman" argument. For quite a while here a false dichotomy has been held up so that anything that isn't dyed in the wool conservative is held up as liberal. Do I think this guy is a conservative because of his hatred for liberals? Not nesessarily, particularly when you're dealing with people with a mental illness (as the shooter likely has). Holding to this false logic in one direction (Fred Phelps is a liberal because he hates the troops, unlike conservatives, who love them!) but not in the other is hypocritical, and in the context of "teaching" children, as is the purported purpose of this webpage, deceitful. Corry 12:28, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Regardless of whether or not the gunman was conservative, he was NOT "a gunman opposed to Christianity," as the Main Page states front & center. The lead-in should be changed ASAP to read "a gunman opposed to liberals."--Leansleft 12:32, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

How do you figure, Leansleft? How does the letter he left invalidate the reports of eyewitnesses that he had issues with Christianity and would get angry when it was mentioned? --Benp 12:35, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
His hatred of Christianity is irrelevant to this tragedy, UU is a lot closer to Wicca than to Christianity. Saying that he was opposed to Christianity is akin to saying that he didn't like to eat bananas. Kajillion 16:46, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

People please! This just happened. Details are still emerging. We don't know the full story behind this guy and drawing conclusions from the very sketchy information that we currently have is wrong for either side to do. Please reserve judgment for when we know more. Jinxmchue 12:36, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, the Unitarians aren't exclusively Christian (and I don't say that as an epithet, as does this webpage). If he was primarily angry with Christians, why didn't he go for the old standby for hatred against Christians, the Catholics? No, he was blaming his problems on liberals and wanted to kill people at a liberal church. That's not to say that he probably didn't have plenty of hatred to go around. I wonder if he was pro-life? He's probably about to not be for the death penalty anymore, though. Corry 12:41, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Well put, Jinx; I apologize if I have wrongly leaped to conclusions. --Benp 12:45, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Fox News' headline now states "Cops Say Church Shooting Suspect 'Hated' Gays, Liberals". He was a former member of the 101st Airborne, and seems to have long held bitter hatred for gays and liberals, who he felt were taking his job opportunities away. Fox is also running a blog on the tragedy, which mentions the police are now treating this as a hate crime, as he specifically selected this Church for his attack based on the liberal and gay community who attended - there's no mention of him hating Christians. EngelUmpocker 12:56, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

From the article you linked, Engel:
"Karen Massey, who lived two houses from Adkisson's home, told the Knoxville News Sentinel of a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a couple years ago after she told him her daughter had just graduated from Johnson Bible College. She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian. "He almost turned angry," she told the newspaper. "He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it." Massey said Adkisson talked frequently about his parents, who "made him go to church all his life. ... He acted like he was forced to do that."
--Benp 13:09, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
My guess (which isn't a stretch) is that he'll be found very mentally unstable, hating lots of things: religion, liberals, gays, getting the burnt Rice Krispie in his cereal bowl. At that point, the "he was liberal", "no, he was conservative" argument will be rendered null and void. That's my guess at this point. Jinxmchue 13:12, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. As I said above: it sounds like he was angry at the world. --Benp 13:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Also agreed. But I still think the lead-in is incorrectly stated and should be changed. How about "an enraged gunman"?--Leansleft 13:37, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
It needs to say what a tragedy this is for the families involved. If only he had just talked to somebody. Pam
That's not a bad idea. Could the lead be updated to convey the sympathies and prayers of Conservapedia for those who lost loved ones in the shooting? That, I would hope, is something we can all agree on. --Benp 18:16, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It "sounds like he was angry at the world"? Which source stated this? "My guess (which isn't a stretch) is that he'll be found very mentally unstable, hating lots of things"? Good that we're leaving this up to guesswork, then, not stating what many sources have said. "At that point, the "he was liberal", "no, he was conservative" argument will be rendered null and void"? How convenient, then, that the main page continues to say that he was "opposed to Christianity", a viewpoint which is opposed to Conservapedia's message, rather than not associating him with any political movement at all. You guys were fine with using sources when it said he hated Christianity, but now that sources say that he hated liberals and gays and read books by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity [4], the headline on your main page is suddenly left to guesswork and consensus rather than what sources have said. It sounds like you guys are unwilling to even remotely associate this killer with your political viewpoints, and would rather inaccurately portray his viewpoints than use what most sources are saying about him. For the record, though, I support using the generic "enraged gunman", which doesn't skew the headline politically or religiously. No doubt this killer is insane, no matter what his viewpoints are, and the crime was horrific and tragic. Our hearts should go out to the families of victims. --Beeb 18:20, 28 July 2008 (EDT)


You're right, Beeb. I'm absolutely not willing to associate this killer with my political (or moral) viewpoints. It is my viewpoint that I can effectively debate those with whom I disagree without resorting to violence. It is my viewpoint that those who wrong me should be forgiven. It is my viewpoint that anyone who would attack a church full of children is either utterly insane or an utter monster, and that in either case, he should be removed from society.
I resent it when someone tries to link someone like that to my viewpoints--just as I'm sure you would resent it if someone tried to link, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Josef Stalin to yours.
Lots of people here complain about liberals. That does not prompt them to pick up a gun and go attack innocents.
I mentioned that the gunman apparently hated Christianity because, at the time I mentioned it, that was what was being reported, in precisely those words, by the local news sources closest to the story. You'll notice that at no point did I say "He's a liberal." At no point did Andy say "He's a liberal." At no point, in fact, did anyone say "He's a liberal."
Now: new information has come out since that point, and I would support including it in the story. However, Jinxmchue has made an excellent point: the story is in the process of unfolding, and new information is still coming in. Did I jump the gun in mentioning the "hates Christianity" reports? Perhaps. I'll note that that information is still in the reports; it has not been negated or retracted or in any way altered by subsequent reports. It is, I will admit, only one piece of the story, and others have now emerged.
You would like the story changed to reflect the information as it stands right now. How is it beneficial, though, to make the same mistake twice? Supposing they change the main page story to read "Conservative gunman attacks liberals," and then tomorrow it turns out that the note was faked? Or that the gunman had a former girlfriend in the congregation, and that was his real motive?
You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, condemn CP for rushing to report information you don't consider relevant, and then turn around and complain because CP is not rushing to report information you DO consider relevant.
With that said: I'm glad we can agree that the victims are the ones who are truly important here. --Benp 18:41, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for changing it. For the record, I'm not liberal; I identify as a libertarian. I apologize for sounding hostile when I wrote that. I definitely supported a generic, politically neutral portrayal of the killer for the headline, though I believe an article would be better fitted to exploring the man's political and religious viewpoints should one be written. --Beeb 22:59, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Update on Bush's Economic Legacy

I don't expect it to be treated as newsworthy, or updated in the George W. Bush article, but this is the reality nonetheless. According to a Bush administration official, the next president will inherit a record budget deficit approaching $490 billion. The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs. John McCain has his hands full. --DinsdaleP 11:09, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Website crashed

I was up last night trying to edit but something was wrong. The "edit" button was gone and I could not add anything to any of the articles. I was not sure who was the best person to tell about this, so sorry if this is not the correct procedure. PamAyers 10:33, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

That's not an error, Pam. The administrators of this site disable general editing during the overnight hours (U.S. timeframe), to minimize vandalism during that time. Sysops and a subset of contributors who are trusted can apply edits, and the rest of us need to wait until the AM to edit again. I don't think the time window is exactly the same each night, but generally starts around midnight (someone please correct me if wrong, and add the typical time editing is enabled each morning). --DinsdaleP 11:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Iraq troop surge successful, so reporters leave

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32888

The number of reporters embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq declined dramatically after the surge in U.S. troop strength went full force last year and violence in the country, including U.S. casualties, started to decline.
As a consequence, there have been fewer reporters in the field with U.S. troops in Iraq this year to report on the successes those troops have achieved.
In the period since the surge began in January 2007, according to data that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF) provided to CNSNews.com, the number of embedded reporters in Iraq peaked in September 2007 at 219 and declined to a low of 58 this June.
That is a 74 percent drop in embedded reporters in 9 months.

Typical. Jinxmchue 12:35, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge

From a new Associated Press story:

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain's signal that he may be open to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, despite previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind, is drawing sharp rebukes from conservatives."

He'd have been better of sticking to straight talk, instead of over-promising and now backing off of those promises because they were too unrealistic to continue campaigning on. --DinsdaleP 12:48, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Obama's Western Wall media stunt

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13021.htm

What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign. Maariv, the second most popular newspaper in Israel, was roundly criticized for publishing the note Obama left in the Kotel. But now a Maariv spokesperson says that publication of the note was pre-approved for international publication by the Obama campaign, leading to the conclusion that the "private" prayer was intentionally leaked for public consumption.

Nice. *rolls eyes*

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

Jinxmchue 14:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

So let me get this right, you distrust the media under all circumstances, unless if it states something negative about Obama? What makes you so sure that this isn't the newspaper's journalistic CYA in face of the huge criticism it has received over publishing the prayer? --AndrasK 15:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Or Not.--Jareddr 18:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I distrust that even more than I distrust the media. Jinxmchue 23:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the straw man argument, Andra. Jinxmchue 23:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Be careful not to pull a muscle while twisting that logic, jinx. Don't want you to hurt yourself! --Jareddr 08:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)


Ted Stevens Indicted on 7 federal counts

Ted Stevens became the first senior senator to be indicted in 15 years. He is charged with having not disclosed over $250,000 worth of gifts and services from oil companies drilling in Alaska. Link as follows: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imj_wFFOOGWsLjY9pvVWN-FcG-ZgD927M5SG1

This is the man who brought us the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, and in 2006 tried to anonymously block a bill that would require the government to publish online a database of federal spending. He's innocent until proven guilty, but hopefully will do the right thing and step down anyway. --DinsdaleP 15:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

More muddled messages from m'lud

Fourteen-year-old Sikh girl wins High Court battle to wear religious bangle at school "While not a requirement of her religion, [Mr Justice Silber] accepted the Kara was of ‘exceptional importance’ to Sarika’s racial identity or religious belief." "The High Court has previously refused to uphold a teenager’s right to wear a chastity ring at school as an expression of her Christian faith and a 13-year- old Roman Catholic girl’s right to wear a crucifix on a chain" I don't object to people wearing items which express their faith, but do object to muddle-headed thinking from out of touch old duffers in wigs who think that some faiths are more equal than others. There should be an outright ban on all such items, or all should be permissible. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Britain's broken society is caused by lack of religion

Sir Jonathan Sacks addresses the bishops of the worldwide Anglican communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference, points to the collapse of faith as the key factor behind the failure of relationships, the weakness of marriage and the fragmentation of communities.[5] 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 04:48, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hitler Youth?

Seriously? Which government agency are the children supposed make reports to? M.O.M.? What does that stand for? Wait… it's not an acronym? Oh. Oh. Okay then. Way to be overdramatic. --EulerMascheroni0577 08:37, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

The Hitler Youth comparison is made by the site to which that link leads, not CP. Over dramatic? Perhaps... But indoctrination is not a good thing. I don't know about liberal households, but I certainly don't want external agencies encouraging my children to compile "criminal case files" against their parents and relatives detailing supposed/perceived breaches of state-sponsored orthodoxy. Go figure. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 08:50, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
If I read the site right, they're asking the kids to compile a case file and then review it with their families. That's a far cry from reporting ont their families to the authorities. --DinsdaleP 08:58, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
And what is the next stage? Parents didn't change their evil ways? Email the case file to npower. No, it is wrongheadedness, and no family should be encouraging their children to adopt this mind set. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 09:04, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Obviously not, but comparison of a Flash game to the Hitler Youth can be seen as a cheapening of the evil of Nazism. --EulerMascheroni0577 09:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
ORLY? Actually, its about indoctrination. The poor kids of the Hitler Jugend and Deutsches Jungvolk weren't Nazis by choice - they were brainwashed, the ADULT bast**ds in power taking advantage of their developing and vulnerable minds. This doesn't cheapen the evil of Nazism at all, but it highlights how big organizations/corporations are not afraid to stoop to any level to begin their brainwashing of our children. Flash games today - tomorrow the world! Children can be taught to be responsible about energy conservation without a good/bad permissible/CRIME thing being rammed into their heads. Being energy-wasteful isn't a crime (yet), and if you can't see where this leads then you need to remove tête from derriere. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 09:25, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Forgive me if I don't find telling kids that wasting energy is a bad thing to be comparable with telling kids that Jews should be eradicated. --EulerMascheroni0577 09:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
As a Jew I find this kind of faux "nazi card" playing that you are engaging in to be pretty offensive. AGAIN, the kids of the HJ were indoctrinated. They weren't responsible for their nazism any more than the kids we see dressed up in toy explosive-belts in Gaza are responsible for their hatred of Israel. It is the adults who brainwash them who are guilty. As a Jew, I don't condemn the kids of the HJ - they had no choice. This is about the indoctrination of kids' minds. As such, the HJ connotation is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but not to the point you are implying. In fact, it certainly serves to shock the reader into realizing just what a wicked thing it is for a corporation to stoop so low as to encourage children to behave in this fashion. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 09:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey, guess what? I'm a Jew as well. I'm saying that the two are not comparable, and that to attempt to elevate the indoctrination of children with environmentalism, which is not necessarily a serious issue, with the indoctrination of children with Nazism, simply serves to lessen the impact of the latter, while making the purveyor of the comparison look like an idiot. --EulerMascheroni0577 10:02, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Indoctrination of children, whether it be over racial, religious, conservation or fashion issues IS comparable. It is about building a mindset in your children that certain behaviour - eg that not sanctioned by the state - is a crime (when energy wastefulness patently is not, and comes nowhere close to being a crime) - and that it is acceptable to secretly build dossiers detailing your family's crimes under these perceived criminal statutes. If you really were a Jew, you would appreciate the sensitivity of this issue is nothing to do with whether it was conducted by nazis, buddhists or the tufty club, but about the fact that it is being done at all. Again, the HJ connotation becomes stronger with your arguments, simply because the HJ themselves were taught that Judaism was a crime, when - in my country anyway - it isn't. Get over yourself. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 10:17, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) "If you really were a Jew"....Oh, so you're saying, Fox, that if he doesn't agree with your views, then he's not really a Jew? So only people who agree with you are really Jews? Wow. Despite all the other ridiculous statements you've made on this topic, that remark truly is The MOST Ridiculous. Congratulations! --Jareddr 10:23, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Ridiculous? LOL. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

If I read the site right, they're asking the kids to compile a case file and then review it with their families. That's a far cry from reporting ont their families to the authorities. I disagree: it's not just a nice kids, discuss green stuff in the home with your parents. The whole 'Climate Cops', 'case file' business is encouraging children to take an aggressive and disrespectful attitude towards their parents over the issue. I'm not sure that I would care for any child of mine to accuse me of being a climate criminal because I still for safety reasons have one or two incandescent light bulbs around the place. Bugler 10:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

(sigh) I'll just say this and stop. I think the intent of the site was good - helping kids and their families to be more aware of where they could be saving more energy. I suppose the whole "detectives & case files" metaphor could have been rethought, but kids have been used to that since Scooby-Doo came out in the 1970's. It probably would have been a lot less of an issue if kids had simply been encouraged to add up all the possible savings their family was missing out on, but they tried to make it more engaging, that's all.--DinsdaleP 11:37, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Breaking news: Atheists are whingeing...

...because a British city council expects its employees to work, rather than waste taxpayers' money surfing Godless and depraved websites. Congratulations to the city of Birmingham for taking a stand! Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7530519.stm Bugler 10:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting that Christians, Hindus, and Muslims aren't "whingeing" because, according to the article, they can continue to waste taxpayers' money surfing religious sites instead of working. Oh, and before you go congratulating the city---this "policy" reeks of religious discrimination and will likely be overturned. Now, shouldn't you be working instead of cruising the Internet?--Jareddr 10:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, don't persist in such a tone here. Inform with a cite, as Bugler did, or go somewhere else. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:24, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Hm, it seems we both came to the same conclusion about Jareddr at the same time. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 10:32, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Since Jareddr has been banned for his participation on another site and cannot cite, I'll point out that the article makes clear that the policy cleary violates the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003. Tmassey 11:06, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Since Jareddr was banned for being a door handle - and having a COI about any edit he/she may make based upon their stated desire to bring CP to an end - please be aware that I am taking great interest in your edits. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 11:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
door handle - I'm racking my brains (which won't take long) for any slang/rhyming slang possibilities for that term. Bugler 11:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Maybe a wiki isn't the best format for you guys Tmassey 11:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm hoping this ban does get overturned legally - otherwise it sets a dangerous legal precedent. Though I have no doubt B'ham will have to revert their ban though, as it does contravene both British and European laws on freedom of religious expression --J00ni 11:25, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

This one's not as easy as it seems, but I'd go in favor of removing the block on atheist sites. My problem isn't with people accessing certain religious sites from work - for example, I go to my church's site now & then to check for schedules or phone numbers. My problem is with government workers surfing when they should be working, or accessing sites that are offensive to a reasonable person. Reading and posting comments on a Christian or Jewish site during non-break work time is wrong. Based on the law there you could go to Landover Baptist site but not an atheist one? How is that following the intent?. In the end, workers have to be accountable for how they spend their time and what they do on government computers, and audits of their individual actions should be the justification for any discipline. --DinsdaleP 11:55, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
I disagree DinsdaleP, people should not be accessing website like this at all. Liberals might find it excepetable to access just any website they find, but the government should be setting good moral bounds and prevent at least its employees, if not wider community, for these blatently anti-Christian sites in a Christian country.MarcusN 19:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
So who decides what's an appropriate Christian/Jewish/etc. site, and what's not? Hopefully they're not spending tax dollars on something that pointless. Bottom line is that you can slack off on any number of legitimate sites - it's the behavior that's a problem, not splitting hairs over which sites should be blocked or not. -DinsdaleP 20:06, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Dinsdale atheist website indirectly support slacking off because nothing in their values support the Protestant ethic. It is this alone that means that by using a good Christian site such as Conservapedia at work, as I am now, it will on increase my productivity during the day. MarcusN 22:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
The user is no longer with us. Jinxmchue 11:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Password issue

Hello Mr. Schlafly, I created an account a while back (JasterMereel) but I forgot my password. I have been busy with school and haven't had much time to edit. I have tried to have it reset but have not received any email to have this done. Can you reset my password for the JasterMereel account and delete this one. Thank you --JMereel 18:43, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Account blocks

Due to the attempts of sites hostile to CP to create accounts here that are hostile to Conservapedia, a number of accounts have been blocked./ this may be due to an "edit pattern" and the operators of those accounts may be entirely innocent. Please email me at nexus.central.@gmail.com if you feel you have been unfairly blocked. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

So it's "guilty until proven innocent", eh? Charming. --AKjeldsen 19:21, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Who died and made you king of CP? Jinxmchue 19:22, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Jason, I have a provisional list of users from <name removed>, given to me by a sysop there, of users who are operating here as parodiats/moles. I will send it to you via email. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
You have "a list" given to you by someone from a site filled with people who are known and proven liars (e.g. they come here and mole it up) and you believe it? Jinxmchue 20:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Someone in authority needs to go over all the blocks by Fox to see if valid--jp 20:30, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm a little bit scared to speak up right now, but if it's the site I think it is, isn't this kind of infighting exactly what they want to see here? Why give them the satisfaction? --Benp 20:32, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Jason, but the thing is we can unblock the innocent. It takes seconds. But at least we now have a solution for the wrongdoers. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Why block the innocent in the first place based upon the lies of people with a morbid fetish about disrupting this site? Chuck the list, tell those mouth-breathers where to go and keep the blocks limited to obviously guilty parties. Jinxmchue 20:40, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that was chilling. Thanks for the unblock, and in the future can blocks be handed out when someone actually does something harmful to this project? The revert option only takes seconds, too. -DinsdaleP 20:43, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
That depends on if certain parties continue to depend on phony information from a stinking pit of liars. Jinxmchue 20:45, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
I think everyone needs to take an hour off, have their favorite cold beverage, and start up without carrying any baggage over this. It's going to be a looong summer otherwise. --DinsdaleP 20:54, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Mouth-breathers? Morbid fetish? Such name calling! Immature.Corry 23:25, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
  • shrug* I'd think people would be more concerned about the attempts to disrupt this site than words people choose to accurately describe the disrupters. Jinxmchue 10:16, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Very well put. It is astounding how liberals never, ever accept or admit any responsibility for the vandalism and even outright crimes committed by people who fall for the ideology. One could almost define the term "liberal" by the unwillingness to admit that ideas do have consequences and do cause harm.--Aschlafly 10:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd respond that having a liberal viewpoint has nothing to do with supporting or condoning vandalism, and it's wrong to assume that all liberals want to harm this site. I'd say that most of the liberals (and centrists like me) just want to express alternate viewpoints to some of the assertions made here, and the best way for those views to be taken credibly is to be professional and constructive.
There's also no disagreement as the whether or not ideas have consequences and the potential to cause ham. The difference lies in which ideas one considers harmful. -DinsdaleP 10:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
"Very well put. It is astounding how liberals never, ever accept or admit any responsibility for the vandalism and even outright crimes committed by people who fall for the ideology." So how can you explain this, Aschlafly? You never, ever show any responsibility to what your sysops are doing. Its behavior like that, that stumped my contribs to nothing. I won't make edits to a site that can't follow its own rules. LardoBolger 12:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I can explain that one quite easily. Point one: the IPs blocked according to this message were continually used by trolls to vandalize the site; point two: the individual who questioned those blocks refused to even listen to me; point three: if I or anyone else on this site sees individuals continually abusing the priviledge, we're going to remove them. Karajou 00:01, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
I actually think the IP range blocks were justified as you explained, using a proxy for a wiki usually means vandalism. However, my point was the user Wisdom98 that you blocked, and KevinM for questioning it (without even responding). Turns out, you blocked him when his contributions stopped 5 days before his block. In actuality, you blocked him for opposing Ed Poor's nomination for administratorship at wikipedia, further proof on your user talk page over there. Also, a startling admission from you here shows that you don't even care about the rules - you'll just block anyone who you don't like (probably me, too, after this post). Further reading on the talk page shows you've gone so far as to write letters to defame certain people... if Wisdom98 can earn a ban from CP for simply voting on another site, writing harassing letters bent on disrupting people's lives should warrant harsher consequences. Oh, and for reference, you lied about me in the past in order to justify TK's abusive blocking of me and several other users. Care to explain any of that, or maybe Aschlafly can, without someone reverting and blocking me as is the usual protocol around here? Any response would be nice that isn't classic censorship and abusive.
And yet, Aschlafly didn't even respond. My point has been made quite clear in that regard. LardoBolger 09:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Two things, Lardo. The first thing is that you twisted every link you provided just to support your little allegations, which fall apart when looked at. I never said I block anyone I don't like in that Wikipedia link; I said I block anyone who causes trouble here. There's a difference between the two. You were blocked by another for that very reason, and you know it. The second thing is you are clearly defending those people who caused trouble for this site, up to and including the cyber-terrorism and cyber-bullying they have caused. You have absolutely no clue as to what is happening in the past or right now. Since you think that editing here is a right, and not a priviledge; since you think that everything that we do is just plain harmful to people like you; since you think that the rights of a troll or vandal against this site is more important than those who are stuck cleaning up after them; then I don't need to explain everything else to you, except to say that you need to part company with Conservapedia. Karajou 23:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Ezra Klein

Umm, why are we linking from the main page to a blog entry that disparages Conservapedia? Is this a joke, or work of a parodist? DrSandstone 10:32, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

"Dr", you misunderstand this site and conservatives generally. It's liberals who blacklist other sites and people based on their viewpoints, not conservatives.--Aschlafly 11:00, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't the discussion above this one, about users being blocked for also being users of RW, kind of prove you wrong on that count? --J00ni 11:29, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
No, I don't misunderstand conservatives in general. My confusion is in linking from the main page to a site that mocks Conservapedia. I just wonder what is gained by that. -DrSandstone 11:31, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
My guess is to show how immature and spiteful and full of hate liberals are. because we, you know, totally are.--Iconoclastbeggar 11:48, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Sophistry at its finest--eligus 12:27, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Look, this is all I'm talking about. Sorry Andy, I hadn't checked to see who put it up there, and didn't realize it was you. Still, this seems to only be bringing negative attention to this site. Unless I'm missing something, which I'd very much like to understand:
"You should all note that the Great Andy Schlafly has seen fit to put this blog post on the front page of Conservapedia. I think that either he didn't read the article, or that he thought the article was positive. Actually this atheism article is about the same as most of the "articles" over there. Posted by: Damian | July 30, 2008 11:56 PM Haha, @NS, Conservapedia made you famous by actually quoting you on the "broken news" section of their main page! Quoted by the Esquire, BSE, JD himself. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=494132&oldid=494001 Posted by: Human | July 31, 2008 2:01 AM "

-DrSandstone 13:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

"DrSandstone" (I doubt it), you are practicing in the usual Liberal Style of censoring things you donot agree with. Conservatives would never block a website just because they don't agree with content. This is a common tactic by evolutionists to try to censor debate because if they were exposed to different ideas they would see how weak their position is. MarcusN 19:52, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Understand: I'm not censoring anything. I suggest you look that word up, actually. I am questioning linking from the Main Page news items to a site that openly denigrates this site. If we did that for every site that doesn't like us, that would be overflowing. I don't deny that there are detractors, I just wonder at the reason of giving them the attention that they so obviously crave. -DrSandstone 11:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego's Mt. Soledad

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-cross31-2008jul31,0,3647207.story

"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."

Thank you, Judge Burns, for standing up to the ACLU and others and making the right decision. Jinxmchue 14:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


I've never understood why the sight of a cross is offensive in the first place. I can understand, perhaps, a non-Christian objecting to a new monument featuring a cross, if it's to be paid for with taxpayer dollars...but this particular monument's already there, and has been for a long time. It would cost considerably more taxpayer dollars to tear it down.
Has anyone ever been truly emotionally hurt by seeing a cross? Seriously? I wonder how such people drive down the typical main street, past churches and cemeteries.
Maybe if people stopped focusing so much on symbols which ultimately cause harm to nobody, we could solve some of the real problems facing the country. --Benp 14:50, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
As an atheist, I agree with you. MrGrieves 21:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The story doesn't end here. The ACLU has sixty days to file an appeal to the dreaded 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. We know how those decisions end (Pledge is bad)--jp 21:36, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue I can't believe you are celebrating this. "The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages". The judge just said that the cross is of no religious significance. That is scandalous, the judge should have reaffirmed that the US is a Christian country and as such mourns the loss of its sons in a Christian manner. MarcusN 08:40, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
MarcusN, I can't believe you're trolling on the talk page. Please see " On parodists/moles" on my userpage and have a nice day. Jinxmchue 11:55, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Homeschool Regulations

I read through the list of the final regulations, and none of them seem unreasonable. The school board dropped the provision for home visits that I found intrusive. Which of the ones that were approved are particularly objectionable? -DinsdaleP 08:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)


Taxes

Thanks for the stats on income taxes. Those are astounding. The top 1% of American taxpayers must really be suffering. Rockthecasbah 07:31, 2 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm back! Maybe I should put some work into the Ted Stevens article, eh? He won't be my senator much longer.)

Vikings in North America

I read the American History lecture and its mention of Vikings, but the reference link to the Professor who discredits this theory doesn't work. What I did find via Google were several references to L'Anse aux Meadows:

"L'Anse aux Meadows is the only authenticated Viking site in North America. It was established 1000 years ago by the explorer Leif Eiriksson during his adventures in eastern North America - 500 years before Columbus' exploits in the "New World". The site was rediscovered by Helge Ingstad and his wife Anne Stine in 1960. L'Anse aux Meadows is now a National Historic Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the first cultural site in the world to receive this designation - a symbol of its outstanding cultural and historical value."

Was there subsequent evidence to disprove that this settlement existed? It may not have been a successful colony like Jamestown, but it's proof they were here nonetheless. --DinsdaleP 11:14, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

It has not been disproved. Bolster was arguing that there is little or no evidence that the Norse were in New England. Conservapedia somehow thinks that applies to all of North America.--JBoley 11:25, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
By the way, the site the quote comes from is not the most realible group of people in the world [6]--JBoley 12:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
It would be more correct to say that ASchlafly, rather than Conservapedia, thinks that Bolster's quote applies to all of North America, since Conservapedia's articles on Vinland, Eric the Red, and Leif Erikson all refer to the settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows. --Brossa 15:02, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
As a matter of fact, the article in question specifically confirms that Vikings were the first Europeans to reach North America:
"Everybody does, however, agree the Vikings made it to North America 500 years before Christopher Columbus in 1492. And few question the fur-clad Ericson and his crew of explorers dropped anchor from their open plank boats off the beach near what is now L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, the site that would become the only authenticated Viking settlement in North America."
Besides this point, I don't really see why this is so important anyway. The Vikings that reached Newfoundland - regardless of whether they were Leif Eiriksson and his crew or somebody else - made a very significant and impressive accomplishment. Christopher Columbus and his crews made an equally significant and impressive accomplishment. Is the accomplishment of the former worth less because they were not Christians? Of course not. And is the accomplishment of the latter worth less because they were not the first to reach America? Of course not.
I would suggest that this "story" be removed from the main page and the History Lecture, because it is not supported by the reference article, it is not supported by the academic literature and the archaeological evidence, and the entire question is completely beside the point. Thank you. --AKjeldsen 15:11, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

So what is the proof? A few artifacts that anyone could have planted for amusement or financial reward? The artifact business is rife with fraud, with many proven examples of wrongdoing in analogous cases. Is there any credible DNA or documentary evidence?--Aschlafly 15:14, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

How about the vinland saga as doeumentary evidence? Every professional historian accepts that the Vikings were here? What makes you doubt the evidence?--Woodling 15:18, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, the archaeological finds at L'Anse aux Meadows have been extensively analyzed and the finds published in international peer-reviewed publications. Here is a small selection. When combined with the documentary evidence of particularly the Grønlendinga saga and the Eiríks saga rauða, the evidence becomes very strong indeed that at least one group of Norse Vikings did reach Newfoundland. --AKjeldsen 15:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
The claimed evidence makes no sense. The key artifact was used by ... Norse women, not men. Uh oh, Norse women didn't travel with the Viking men. Looks like someone made a mistake in setting up the story ...--Aschlafly 16:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
If we, for whatever reason, were to believe the Vinland sagas...well, they actually do say women went along, most notably Freydis Eiríksdóttir, and that the vikings fought over the women (contributing to the downfall of the supposed settlement). Wandering 16:36, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Additionally, you might be interested in reading the following snippet from a BBC article by Judith Jesch, a notable authority on the matter:
Women could and did play a part in this process of settlement. Iceland, for instance, was uninhabited, and a permanent population could only be established if women also made the journey there. In regions with an established indigenous population, Viking settlers may have married local women, while some far-roving Vikings picked up female companions en route, but there is evidence that Scandinavian women reached most parts of the Viking world, from Russia in the east to Newfoundland in the west.[1]
::: Wandering 16:45, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
The presence of women would indicate a fairly stable settlement rather than an exploring expedition. It seems unlikely that women would have been using the forge and furnace to make bog iron, or did you not read that far?--Woodling 16:12, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, if you are determined to ignore the entire corpus of academic literature on this subject in favour of what you yourself wish to believe, then I suppose there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise. However, in doing so, you are only damaging the quality of this project and the teaching of your pupils. Also, as I've just been reminded by a colleague, Leif Eiriksson was also a Christian, so the apparent basis of this whole controversy doesn't even seem to exist in the first place. --AKjeldsen 16:15, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
In reply to Wooding, the New York Times says, "Particularly convincing was the discovery in 1964 of a spinner for yarn, the first proven Norse artifact in North America. This discovery implied that the settlers included women who attended to household tasks while the men tried to establish a permanent settlement."[7] Only one problem: Norse women didn't travel with the Viking men, so how would they get there? No one seems to address that.
And how about this: supposedly the American Indians destroyed the settlement. Pretty amazing, huh? Viking men with their superior weapons were destroyed by a few random Indians in Newfoundland? Funny how liberals don't seem to make the Indians the scapegoats when it's to further an absurd claim.--Aschlafly 16:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, where do you get the idea that Norse women did not travel with Norse men? This was a settlement, not an expedition. Norse women were already present at other Viking settlements in Greenland. To put it another way, would you deny the presence of English women in English colonies? Of course not. The Norse indicated that they had difficulties with the “Skarlings” (as they referred to Native Americans), but the consensus seems to be that the Vikings abandoned Newfoundland for a number of reasons. Lack of communication with Greenland (which by the way, they would later abandon as the climate became colder, making farming impossible).

- Now Mr. Asschlafly, if you wish to ignore evidence and academic consensus, I fear I cannot convince you otherwise. However, you claim to be a teacher. Ethically speaking, the parents of the children you teach should be made aware of your unusual views. After all, if you wish to remain willfully ignorant, that is your own affair, but it is a travesty that you would be allowed to teach children. I assume I will be banned after this.--Woodling 16:42, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

In reply to AKjeldsen, you protest too much to some scrutiny of this liberal claim about Vikings settling North America. Surely you don't object to a little critical thinking, do you?--Aschlafly 16:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I can assure you that I never object to critical thinking. However, critical thinking requires a certain familiarity with the subject in question, and I don't see that here. What I do see is a certain number of hasty and not very well supported conclusions on a matter that falls within my professional competence, and this naturally leads me to try to correct those. Surely you yourself would do the same in your professional fields?
However, I would like to make a distinction here. The claim that Vikings settled North America in any permanent way is indeed not supported by the evidence, and they most likely didn't - or if they tried, such settlements at least did not survive for very long. For instance, L'Anse aux Meadows is clearly not a long-term settlement, but rather one that e.g. a longship crew would build to pass the winter before a long return journey.
But settling America is not what we're discussing here. The item on the main page refers to reaching North America, and the clear, evidence-based consensus in the academic community of archaeologists and historians is that the Vikings did this first. --AKjeldsen 16:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
"L'Anse aux Meadows is clearly not a long-term settlement" -- I'm glad we agree about that. Most history teachers claim otherwise. I'll check a history book I just bought to consider for my course and let you know what it says. But given the contradictions I cite above, you might add that "L'Anse aux Meadows is not a proven Viking settlement at all."
The word "reaching" North America implies some sort of asserting of a claim, typically by settlement. Nobody knows whether some lost European saw the coast of North America in hundreds of years, and nobody cares. The point is whether anyone staked a claim to it, and the correct answer is no, not before Columbus.--Aschlafly 16:45, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I would rather say that the Vikings may have tried to do so, but that if they did, they were not successful. Even so, I can assure you that if you would care to review a selection of the relevant literature on the subject, you will find that it is quite well-known that the Vikings were the first Europeans to do so, and that the settlement they established at L'Anse is quite demonstrably Norse Viking in origin. Both the archaeological evidence and the documentary evidence of the Norse sagas support this interpretation.
I must admit I'm also slightly puzzled by your statement that nobody cares about this. Don't you think it's important for your students to learn about this part of the history of their continent? --AKjeldsen 17:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a history course, not a mythology course, Kjeldsen, and Mr Schlafly deals in facts, not Liberal wishy-washy wish fulfillment fantasies. And don't forget that 'experts' and 'archaeologists', blinded by what they wished to find, upheld the 'truth' of the Piltdown hoax for decades. Bugler 17:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm genuinely glad to hear that, Mr Bugler! As an academic, I, too, prefer to deal in facts. It so happens that one such facts is that these "'experts' and 'archaeologists'" have usually spent years or even decades examining the material and documentary evidence that support their conclusions, and that such findings are further examined by other experts, who - not to say anything bad about my esteemed colleagues, but facts are facts - would usually dearly love to further their own careers by identifying flaws in the results of others. For this reason alone, I can assure you that the findings at L'Anse have been meticulously examined by a lot of unfriendly eyes since their excavation.
Another fact is that Conservapedia "...[does] not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research." With that in mind, while I in no way mean to claim "decades of experience" or any other qualifications beyond those that I mention on my user page, I can't help but wonder which particular relevant qualifications you bring to this debate? Have you reviewed the relevant literature? Examined the sources? In the original languages? Or perhaps just read up on the historical context of these discoveries? --AKjeldsen 17:28, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Courtesy would require Mr. Schlafly and Mr. Kjeldsen
  • Mr.Kjeldsen seems to deal in facts, too
  • It's not always sensible to prefer the layman's opinions over those of the experts. Laymen may have agendas, too DiEb 17:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Kjeldsen, I appreciate your passion but do not agree that we should unthinkingly and automatically accept the view of a small, unaccountable group of academic elites having an obvious agenda to (i) claim some great discovery for themselves and (ii) appease the insatiable liberal appetite for anything that takes credit away from Christian heroes. You've already conceded that the claims in many history books about a long-term Viking settlement in North America is false, and that the claim of any Viking settlement in what is now the U.S. is false. So we've made progress. But why stop there? Vikings didn't take their wives and children on long voyages, and the evidence of a Viking settlement anywhere in North America is extremely far-fetched and self-contradictory. As a history teacher I have a duty not to teach nonsense to young minds, and that includes liberal nonsense designed to undermine the rightful place of Columbus in American history.--Aschlafly 17:42, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
As Mr. Kjeldsen stated above, Leif Erikson was a Christian, too.DiEb 17:45, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Do you have a cite for the claim that vikings never took their wives along on long voyages? After all, it is not unreasonable to believe some of the women that went with men to form settlements were wives. Wandering 17:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I certainly acknowledge your passion for your views as well, Mr Schlafly, even if I do not agree with them at all, but I must caution against applying them retroactively on the far past. The Vikings that sailed west did not know or care about liberalism or conservatism; as a matter of fact, they probably cared about much the same things that later settlers to America did: Discovering and colonizing new lands, starting new and perhaps better futures for themselves, and at least for the Christian Vikings, also spreading Christianity. Indeed, if the Saga of Eirik the Red is to be believed, this was exactly why Leif Eiriksson sailed west in the first place, because King Olaf Tryggvason of Norway had asked him to preach Christianity in Greenland.
If this is a question of identifying Christian heroes, why not also acknowledge Leif and his crew as such - perhaps even as the first Christians to set foot in America? --AKjeldsen 18:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Kjeldsen, the strident protests by liberals here to questioning the teaching (since about 1965) about Leif Ericson indicate that something political is going on. Why do the liberals protest so much, so stridently, and so obnoxiously? The answer is obvious: Columbus was devout Christian driven by daily prayer and strong faith. Ericson is a distant stranger. It's the difference between saying God created man 5000 years compared to billions of years of who-knows-what. You bet that has a big difference on faith.
But I'm fine with applying logic to the evidence and letting the chips fall where they may. And those chips don't fall in favor of a Viking settlement. Vikings didn't take women on journeys; they had no apparent reason to settle Newfoundland; there's no clear evidence they were there; and there's no plausible explanation for the settlement disappearing. These were Vikings, after all, and Indian warriors did not roam Newfoundland looking for people to kill. The story is a new (since 1965) liberal fantasy to undermine an immediate and powerful Christian hero.--Aschlafly 19:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
"Vikings didn't take women on journeys;" - this is not true, please do not repeat it, thanks. Wandering 19:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
"We do know from the records of the invaded that women usually did not travel with the invaders."[8]--Aschlafly 19:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Um, that's an essentially anonymous internet poster who cites no sources and states no credentials. I posted a quote from the Professor of Viking Studies at the University of Nottingham. I'm quite sure that's a far more reliable source. Wandering 20:14, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
By that logic, American men and women do not travel together, either, since US submarine crews do not contain women. Not every male Norseman was an invader and not every voyage was an invasion. How does ASchlafly explain the presence of women in Greenland and Iceland?--Brossa 20:49, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlalfy, I must admit that I doubt that you have adequately reviewed the evidence before coming to that conclusion. Have you actually read the primary sources in question? Or the analyses of the archaeological evidence in the journals that I referred to earlier? All the journals should be easily accessible through JStor or through your public library. And for your convenience, the important primary sources are the Saga of Eirik the Red chap. 4, The Saga of the Greenlanders, and to a lesser degree, Adam of Bremen's Deeds of the Bishops of the Hamburg Church, Descriptio cap. 38 (only available online in Latin, I'm afraid).
Also, I'm sorry to see this belief that it is apparently necessary to promote the accomplishments of one group of Christians (as if they even needed to be promoted) by needlessly understating the accomplishments of another group of Christians. I for one find this highly unfortunate. --AKjeldsen 19:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


Has anyone thought yet about female slaves? Certainly in the East, the Vikings are well documented in their "use" of slaves whilst travelling. It didn't have to be wives. Guddle 17:56, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

To Mr. Schlafly, I have to ask a few questions based on different comments made across this thread. First, why is it a problem to acknowledge both the Columbus and Viking landings in America? Neither one detracts from the significance of other. As for the dismissal of the Viking presence because "there's no plausible explanation for the settlement disappearing. These were Vikings, after all, and Indian warriors did not roam Newfoundland looking for people to kill.", your own lecture talks about the disappearance of the Roanoke colony as being without explanation, and that doesn't mean Roanoke didn't happen. Third, I don't see how you can sit in judgment and determine that Lief Ericson was a "distant second" to Columbus in terms of his faith - you have no way of knowing, and Columbus' capture and use of native Americans as slaves certainly said a lot about his character as a human being, despite his accomplishments as an explorer. If you are going to teach history by revising it, you need to refute decades of research by trained historians better than the arguments above. Your students deserve no less.--DinsdaleP 21:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Comment: At the risk of contributing to and/or violating the 90/10 rule (which enforces my reticence to comment on anything) the discussion of Columbus in the context of which Christians came to America first (and why, and to what end) should note the relevance that Columbus was a Catholic Christian who was living in the environment of the Spanish Inquisition at the time. I'm not positing any specific position, just pointing out the relevance of those issues. I'm also reticent to talk about my stance towards Catholic Christians and American Christians who aren't Catholic. - AdmiralNelson 22:02, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal hate crime in the news

[9]

Liberal arsonists have attacked Mr. Phelp's garage, almost succeeding in destroying demonstration signs and other material. Etc 14:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


It's one thing to criticize liberals based on fact. It's another to take a story that says the cause of the fire has not yet been determined and claim that it was "liberal arsonists." It may well turn out to be arson; it may be that the arsonists were liberal. Wait to make that claim until there's something to back it up. --Benp 14:22, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

That's true, of course. I only meant to paraphrase the article, but I realize now that it's just speculation, yet. Etc 17:25, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The British Establishment's war on prayer

The Liberal and atheistic establishment that rules over the United Kingdom now prohibits publicising evidence of the benefits of prayer. The state advertising watchdog has censored an advertisement by a church in the English Midlands which cited a qualified physician stating the benefits of prayer. It seems that atheists would rather you died young and alone. Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7539636.stm Bugler 16:39, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The ASA is not a state advertising watchdog, it is an independent body set up by the advertising industry to self-police. It receives no funding from the government. And since the ASA has no legal powers, it has not censored the advert, but criticised it (and this was mostly on a technical point from what I read) and made its ruling - which would have no real power unless a court case were undertaken from my understanding, so the church is free to continue the advert if it feels it can withstand legal challenge --J00ni 20:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Hi Bugler. I just wanted to say that as a British guy, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression about several aspects of the story. Firstly, the ASA isn't a state advertising watchdog. It's actually an self-regulatory body set up by advertisers. They have no power to censor adverts, they just highlight cases of false advertising. Secondly, they weren't attacking the advert because of its religious values, or for stating the general benefits of prayer. In fact, the problem was that the man in question wasn't really a doctor, and more importantly that they were making irresponsible claims about miracle cures, likely to mislead the public. I hope that clears things up a bit. In general, the ASA do an excellent job of trying to maintain decent family values in Britain. MikeR 17:05, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The Discoveries of America

First people in America: oh wait, I guess no one cares about that one.

First European in America: an Irish monk circa 700 floats across the Atlantic in a coracle and lands in Connecticut.

Second Europeans in America: Norsies!

Third group of foreigners to discover America: the Chinese in the 1420's! (see the book 1421)

Fourth discovery of America: Columbus- Christian slaver and murderer extraordinaire

As for evidence, I clearly couldn't put up enough support for all this in a century to be adequate enough for you good people at Conservapedia. Thanks anyways. Rockthecasbah 18:19, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

A fine use of our tax dollars indeed

Check out this bill that was introduced this week by Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and I quote:

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

What a fine use of the salary our tax dollars pay. ---user:DLerner--- 21:02, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Columbus-Related News

On this date in 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail from Palos de la Frontera, Spain. This Day In History --Jareddr 21:58, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, that is timely! Thanks for being thoughtful.--Aschlafly 00:00, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I noticed on the main page you refer to Vikings as "non-Christian", which is not entirely accurate. By the late 10th century most were converted to Christianity. Leif Ericson himself was a Christian. --Humble 14:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

"Shocking"

I'm not one who usually complains about the news on the Main Page, but the latest one about Obama confuses me. What does this book describe about Obama? What is shocking about it? Is there a link to the original news item that reported about these shocking statements?

Also, the top-selling non-fiction book at Amazon, as far as I can tell, is "The Last Lecture" by Randy Pausch and Jeffrey Zaslow. Etc 15:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

A public apology

I do not drink alcohol habitually. Sadly, as a consequence, when I do, it, has a greater effect upon me than one would expect. I wish to apologise to Andrew and the greater CP community for my lapses in behaviour when I've "had a few". Alcohol disinhibits my behaviour and I am sad to say it makes me more aggressive towards CPs detractors than they deserve or would normally expect. I'm sorry about this; it normally only happens every 6 months, and I again apologise for this. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

You're a good guy, Fox, and a real man for showing personal responsibility. Glad to have you here. --DinsdaleP 16:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
So you're blaming your remarks calling me anti-Semitic, racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc. on alcohol consumption? Seriously? I'm willing to forgive and forget as much as the next person, but all I see here is a mealy-mouthed apology, excuse-making and no promise that it will never happen again. Piece of advice, Fox: one does not have to drink habitually to have a drinking problem. If your behavior is being negatively affected at all (no matter how often), then you have a drinking problem and need to get help. Trust me, I am not going to view your next series of outbursts as, "Oh, that Foxy! He's drunk again! Ho ho ho! What a card he is!" Jinxmchue 17:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
No Jason, I'm not referring to anything I said about you. You still remain an anti-semitic snot wad. Enjoy. One day you will receive yours.10px שועל (talk|contribs) 18:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I should've figured. See Guidelines#Civility, which you apparently love to ignore. Jinxmchue 19:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Pot kettle black. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I would love to see you flailing around to try to prove that. I have been profoundly patient with you - far more patient than you deserve considering your extremely uncivil, baseless vitriol. Jinxmchue 19:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Hi Fox. Well, better to make a virtual prat of yourself in cyberspace than do it for real down the pub! Remember: no bones were broken. I've been where you are and you have my sympathy as much as reproach, let he who has never woken up thinking "Oh **** did I do that!" cast the first stone. Your apology has been well received on a site we don't mention. Cheers!--Toffeeman 17:49, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Hmm... like I told ya over email. Block me when I'm active next time. o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 18:33, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Watching you, watching me, watching you. Hey, isn't that a Massive Attack track? And, per email, yes, that is my name. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I feel random today... did you invent the "Foxy Lady" sushi roll? o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 18:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Fox…you will not remember, but last year (on the anniversary of the Nazi occupation of Paris) you were blocked for coming to my aid in a (um) frank and open (ahem) discussion with TK (bless ‘im). I have always thought that you seemed to have a more developed sense of human decency and generosity of spirit than some of those on CP who proclaim the moral high ground. The above words (not only yours) reinforce that. AlanE 18:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Alan, I remember it well. I believe TK banned me for "fanning the flames" for daring to suggest that you were right in pointing out that Britain stood alone, defiant and uncowed, against Nazi terror, and did not "roll over" in fear as he would have liked everyone to believe. My own family owes its survival and very existence to the courage of this small island of proud warriors. And Britain deserves more recognition for the small acts it carried out eg Kindertransport. 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Here's the link I think I made then: London Can Take It! 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes!! I remember it! It was on in Australia. But these wonderful shows creep up on you sometimes and you don’t think to record them until too late. Thanks. AlanE 19:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice Change in Obama pic

We went from an official picture, to one trying to smear him. I guess photo bias isn't just for the MSM anymore! --Jareddr 08:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The picture is not a smear. Obama won the nomination by exploiting anti-military and anti-American sentiment, and the photo conveys that. Obama cultivated his image as conveyed by the photo, and cultivated it well.--Aschlafly 08:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Photo bias actually doesn't have to indicate that it's a smear. In fact, CP defines photo bias as a "tactic of using an unflattering or menacing photo of a supporter of an opposing position to create a hostile impression in the reader." Hmmm, let's take a look at what happened. Official photo was being used. You changed it to one of him not placing his hand on his heart (though the picture doesn't indicate whether the pledge was being said or whether it had just started or ended). You imply yourself that it's an "unflattering" photo. And you put it up because he is a supporter of an opposing position. And finally, you did so to obviously create a hostile impression in the reader. It appears you have satisfied all the conditions of "photo bias"...as if the entry in CP on Obama isn't biased enough---and locked, to boot. --Jareddr 09:09, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

What is the problem with the picture? He is very handsome man, I see nothing bad with it.--Pakhyongshin 10:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The picture is a biased photo, as defined by the photo bias article, as Jareddr has demonstrated above. Many people would think an implication Obama didn't hold his hand over his heart while reciting the pledge is unflattering to him.UlyssesNZ 00:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Phyllis Schlafly and Restraining Orders

I find it ironic that conservatives believe that it's fine to sidestep the constitution and allow warrantless wiretapping because the perceived danger doesn't allow time for due process, but when women and children are threatened with domestic violence, they should live in fear and danger because restraining orders are considered unconstitutional. My fiancee was married to a nightmare of a man who drank and hit her. On one occasion, while she was pregnant, he hit her in front of one of his relatives so hard it knocked her out for a minute. He ran away, and the relative covered for him. On another occasion he threatened her 12-year old daughter (his stepdaughter) with a broken off bottle when her mother was out, and sent the daughter running out into the street at night in fear for her life. Since she couldn't prove either incident happened other than "he said she said", she got a restraining order and he backed off.

I'm a passionate supporter of due process, but I also believe that one of the legitimate roles of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. The Department of Justice estimates that 1.9 million incidents of domestic violence take place each year. These are not hypothetical "what-ifs", these are real attacks of violence on American women and children, and therefore a clear and present danger. I'm not denying that some men suffer from restraining orders placed on them falsely, and Mrs. Schlafly is right to raise awareness of that issue. These men are not in physical danger, however, and can seek criminal and civil recourse through the courts. That's an acceptable tradeoff, when the alternative is to have police tell women like my fiancee that they can't keep men like her ex away until they can prove it in a court, with a miscarriage or a cut-up child as the evidence in her case. --DinsdaleP 10:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

No disagreement? That's a hopeful sign. --DinsdaleP 21:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
What you describe is a violent crime, and if true an arrest should be made, followed by a prosecution in full court, with a punishment that probably should include a restraining order. Nothing controversial about that.
What is controversial are cases quite unlike what you describe, including tossing someone in jail with long sentence today because of a misdemeanor plea he agreed to ten years ago, in U.S. v. Hayes now before the U.S. Supreme Court.--Aschlafly 21:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm in complete agreement with Mrs. Schlafly that there have been misuses of restraining orders, and that the courts need to be truly impartial in giving men the benefit of the doubt when they appeal them. However, she is stating in her article is that "Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute." That, and her comment that "Accused criminals have 'due process' and many other constitutional rights, but feminists have persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations" clearly implies that she believes the low burden of proof required for restraining orders is the problem.
The whole purpose of restraining orders is to prevent violent crimes before they happen, whereas Mrs. Schlafly, and you in your comment above, feel that prosecution after the crime is the proper response. My fiancee couldn't prove assault when her ex's relative gave him an alibi, and since he threatened his stepdaughter instead of cutting her, he could claim that her mother coached her into making the accusation. I respect Mrs. Schlafly despite disagreeing with her, but I seriously have to question whether she's spent any time with victims of domestic violence, and instead is making these judgments from the comfort of a life that's never encountered violence and terroristic threats from someone who has access to her home and children.
U.S. v. Hayes is about the restoration of the right to own firearms after a domestic violence conviction, not about an excessive jail sentence for domestic violence (although Mrs. Schlafly wrote about such a case in an earlier attack on restraining orders). If someone's paid his debt to society and the person who issued the restraining order agrees that the threat is no longer there, then I'm fine with someone having guns again. However, it makes no sense that someone can threaten harm to a partner, be put under a restraining order for it, and then be allowed to own firearms after a short period of time without proof that the threat no longer exists. That makes as much sense as having someone assessed as mentally dangerous and violent given the right to own guns after a time-based treatment, without any effort to determine if they are no longer a threat. --DinsdaleP 22:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Great news about "Obama Nation"

Known left-wing advocacy group Media Matters has examined O'Neill and Corsi's book and could only find about a dozen factual errors or improper representations - far less than you'd probably find in a liberal treatment on a conservative candidate.

There's a rather distasteful article on the same site, though, which makes the dubious assertion that a ridiculousy immature, racist, and anti-Catholic poster on Freerepublic is Corsi. I doubt you'll find many conservatives going around saying "ragheads" (with the obvious exception of Ann Coulter). Wandering 20:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, as much as Media Matters annoy me, I think this sort of book is just as damaging to Conservatives as Liberals. It's childish attack politics of the sort you'd see in the Liberal gutter press, and the sort of thing that we should be rising above in order to focus on actual policy. Our duty - as both Conservatives and Christians - is to reach beyond our core audience to the middle ground, and attempt to persuade the undecided and the agnostic why our way is better. Media Matters ran their article because the book carried all sorts of mistakes. As such, it's a book we should disown as being unhelpful. MikeR 08:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Eid al-Fitr instead of Labor Day

This particular plant has a large number of Somalian refugee employees, the majority of whom are Muslim. What is such a big deal if they choose to have a Muslim holiday among their paid holidays? Boomcoach 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

California Assembly News Item

The proposed bill was nonsense, and a waste of taxpayer money to even have spent time considering it. As stated in the article, existing laws in the state prohibit the government from employing anyone advocating the overthrow of our government. The other part of the bill that required require users of school facilities "to affirm they are not terrorists" is like a joke out of the Daily Show - that's someone's idea of security?

The real issue here is that conservatives are equating people who consider themselves communists with "those who seek the violent overthrow of our democratic republic", and that's not the case. The communist party in the USA is an anachronism, but it's not illegal, and there should be no prohibition against peaceful assembly of different political groups as this amendment proposed. --DinsdaleP 10:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Pledge or anthem?

Is the picture of Obama taken during the pledge or the national anthem? The article says it's the anthem, but the main page says the pledge. I don't necessarily expect accuracy, but consistency would be nice. Jaguar 11:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

There's a video clip on the photo page that shows it happening during the anthem, not the pledge. --DinsdaleP 11:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Paris Hilton? President?

I'm sure Hollywood doesn't need anymore attention, but if you watched the news this morning, I'm sure you caught of glimpse of her "campaign ad". o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 11:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many takes that took. I'd love to see the outtakes reel. Jinxmchue 12:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Half-way through, when the rant about hybridization of energy plans begins, it doesn't even look like her. The close-up sections are there so she can read the cards close-up, in huge, pretty text. o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 13:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I got that impression, too. The cue card guy probably spelled out everything phonetically for her. Jinxmchue 13:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was hilarious. Sometimes I think PH is smarter than she lets on.--Frey 16:15, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Senator Sues God

How is this a 'Breaking News Item' when it happened in September 2007? [10] . Also, if he acknowledges that there is a God to sue, how is he an atheist?--Iconoclastbeggar 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Since when have atheists ever made sense? (Half serious, half joking question.) Jinxmchue 00:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
You people seem to miss the point of the law suit. It is not to sue God, but rather to show that anyone can sue anyone for any reason, and that suing someone doesn't mean that you will win. He is making a point about the court system, not religion. Konstanty 13:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
No. Point wasn't missed. Just intentionally avoided.--Iconoclastbeggar 19:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Iowa judge flings open door to "artistic" underaged strippers

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=204996

An Iowa county judge has ruled that a nude dance by an underage girl at a strip club is an artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. Strip clubs are illegal in the state of Iowa. But numerous such establishments operate under a loophole that allows nudity in theaters, museums, and other venues featuring works of art, dance, and theatrical performances.

Long story short, the judge ruled that a 17-year-old minor's strip act was protected by the First Amendment as "artistic" speech. The pedophiles in Iowa are cheering tonight. This is the sort of messed up interpretation of the First Amendment that the left supports. I hope and pray this is appealed to a higher court and that the higher court will have enough sense to remember that not all speech is protected by the Constitution (i.e. you can't falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater). Jinxmchue 00:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's a mis-characterization to say that this is what the left supports. I agree that this is ridiculous, and I think most other liberals would agree with me that minors need to be protected. Corry 10:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Hey, you guys want to hand out condemns (that's deliberately spelled that way) in schools to "protect" them if they want to have sex, why not protect their free speech and allow them to strip for perverts? Jinxmchue 10:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)


I think you're looking at two different crowds there, Jinx. On the one hand, you have the "No-social-taboos-let's-have-sex-with-vegetables-in-public" crowd, and on the other hand you have the "Soccer-mom-think-of-the-children-please-Big-Govermnent-ban-violent-cartoons" crowd. Both are forms of liberalism, but I think they'd disagree on this issue. Just because someone's a big government liberal doesn't necessarily mean that they're a moral degenerate. --Benp 10:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Edit conflict. Doh! Jinx- we're talking about two different things here. The goal of making condoms readily available is to lower the incidence of teen pregnancy and slow the spread of AIDS, taking into account that teenagers have always had, are having, and will always have sex. That is pragmatism. Are condoms perfect? Certainly not. Are they extremely cost-effective and better than simply telling kids not to have sex? Yes. We can put our heads in the sand and pretend we can preach the issue away, but it won't work. Condoms don't replace the role of the parents and, if inclined, the church in teaching kids morality. Nobody would argue that. It is another preventative step against AIDS and teen pregnancy.
As for you connecting these two issues, they're incomparable. One involves two minors having consensual sex. The other involves a minor taking her (or, well, his) clothes off in front of adults for money. Like I said, I agree that that is a bad thing. And I think most liberals would, as well. Corry 10:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Like many "News" stories posted on the main page, the actual circumstances are different than the headline when you actually read the article it links to. The case involved a 17-year-old girl who illegally entered the establishment, and then stripped spontaneously and voluntarily. While the club should have done a better job screening by age at the door, the headline makes it look like the club employed her and paid her to strip while knowing her true age.

No mainstream person, conservative or liberal, condones underage porn, and it seems that the judge was ruling on her right to express herself by nude dancing since she was a patron and not an employee. The authorities could make a better case by prosecuting them for illegally allowing minors to enter an adult establishment, but if she was using a reasonably effective fake I.D. then it would be hard to prove in court. --DinsdaleP 11:09, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I detect a bit of a double-standard in the decision, Dinsdale. Were I to enter a strip club and feel the need to "artistically" remove my clothes, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested on the spot for indecent exposure and creating a public disturbance (and also probably sued for scarring the psyches of those who had to watch.) --Benp 11:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
When a young woman takes her clothes off in a male-oriented strip club that encourages nude dancing, it's not going to raise much protest from the patrons because that's part of what those clubs are about. If you decided to express your "artistic impulses" in setting like that it would be as legal as it is for a woman stripping, but I'd rather not think about the reception you'd get. (and if it was good, then I'd venture that you'd be the one who was uncomfortable) --DinsdaleP 11:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
It seems to me that the club is trying to avoid big trouble over the girl sneaking in as opposed to fighting for the right of seventeen year old girls to strip. Corry 12:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Is it just me, or is the strangest thing about this story that Iowa allows nudity at museums? TJason 13:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not familiar with that particular law, but my guess is that it was originally meant to protect artistic nudity such as Michelangelo's "David." Corry 14:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, it's the "loophole" under which strip clubs operate. That's some loophole, eh? TJason 14:39, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Breaking News: Anglican Primate praises gay sex

The leader of the Anglican communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has praised gay relationships saying that they are as valid as a true marriage. And Dr Williams wonders why the Anglican Church is on the verge of schism! Story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece Bugler 14:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Is praising gay "marriage" the same as praising gay sex? Could you do one without doing the other? TJason 14:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

BREAKING NEWS: American Christian "Deported" From China After Beijing Detentions

How about this one![11]Sysops, Please don't ignore me.--TagoPagdaluhong 10:35, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion and link. --DeanStalk 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

No, Thank you! Check your talk page for the reason.--TagoPagdaluhong 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Blocking Users for asking questions?

Why do administrator's block users for asking questions and give reasons for blocking like "bye and don't come back." I don't understand it. Do questions make conservapedia people uncomfortable. I'm not talking about bad questions, just simple things, like how do more guns cause less crime? Seems fair to me. Could someone explain why these blocks occur for such questions? Isn't this website about uncovering the truth? Well the first step to uncovering the truth is through questions. I wonder if I will get blocked for asking this question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaxwellHarvey (talk)


I can't speak for the administrators who implement such blocks, however I do think these blocks are justified, as there is a small but determined group of people who continually disrupt and sabotage this project by inserting incorrect information, causing pointless dissention, and vandalizing pages, as opposed to attempting to engage in productive discussion and add sourced, factual information to the pages. It's quite frustrating to those of us who are seeking to build a reliable information source to have to contend with ongoing vandalism of this nature, and my belief is that if a "new user" shows the identical IP or characteristics as a known/proven/previously blocked vandal, the administrator will also block the purported "new user". Again, this is just my impression, I cannot speak for the administrators. If you truly intend to contribute to the pages in a positive manner, I don't think you'll have any difficulties, and your input will be appreciated. Welcome to the site, and I hope you enjoy editing here! :) Taj 15:20, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

PETA ad

Yeee-ikes. What is wrong with those people? Are they so focused on animals that they've lost their humanity? I'm beginning to think so.--Frey 16:08, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a good beginning, Frey, because it's absolutely true. This is nothing new to them. They used Christ's crucifixion to promote their agenda (i.e. having a picture of an animal with the words "He died for your sins.") not too long ago. Jinxmchue 21:15, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Elevating animals to the point where it interferes with human life is just another way to degrade human life.--Aschlafly 21:27, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
It should be noted, too, that these people believe that humans are animals. To them, a human is a monkey is a dog is a cow is a cockroach. And actually, they seem more likely to place humans below cockroaches "because cockroaches don't commit genocide on people" or some other nonsense. Jinxmchue 21:43, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I want to apologize

Lately, I've been using a little too much vitriol in reference to a site that is thousands of times more meaningless and unnoticed than the people on said site claim CP is. I apologize for that. I've no excuse for my behavior. It was just dumb of me to let myself get sucked in by their behavior. That should've never happened. Henceforth, I will refrain from mentioning anything about that site unless absolutely necessary (e.g. the recent blocks I did regarding material added here from one of their parody articles or involving material added that is only of interest/"use" to them). Again, my apologies to all. Jinxmchue 20:41, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Edwards issue?

Is John Edwards' recently admitted immoral activity worthy of the front page news section? --RoyS 22:25, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Russia/Georgian Conflict

Just wanted to alert CP to the sentance "President Bush as urged Putin..." should be 'has urged'.--jp 16:48, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks ... much appreciated! Fixed. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:35, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I believe it's also "calling for a cease-fire." --Jareddr 18:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I hope that Bush does more than condone Russia. As the 3rd greatest presence in Iraq (I do believe they have sent 2,000 troops there) we owe them one. They are also one of our greatest allies in the area. Not to mention the Russians are harming citizens while "protecting" "Russian" citizens in the breakaway regions (which have yet to be internationally recognized), especially considering Putin's dislike of the Georgian leader. Now, I'm not saying military action on our part is the solution and considering Russia's aggressiveness and military size.--Snotbowst 22:36, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Largest pre-college American History class in the world

Currently on the front page:

41 students have already signed up for Conservapedia's in-person class this fall, perhaps making it the largest pre-college American History class in the world.

I'm sorry, but without citation I find it difficult to comprehend that there's never been a similar class with 42 students. This sounds like someone (libs anyone?) has hacked the front page. I can say "perhaps" to anything and make it true. Is this a joke? --AdmiralNelson 11:53, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Given CO is not a big believer in evolutionism perhaps it should be rewritten to say the class is the biggest of its kind in the universe?  :) Conservative 13:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
"AdmiralNelson", your comment is the illogical one. The front page does not say "there's never been" .... It says perhaps this is the biggest such class today.
Someone out there can cite a bigger class if one exists. So far, no one has and I can't think of any either.--Aschlafly 15:11, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Isn't a high student-to-teacher ratio generally considered a negative trait in public high school? I know in college, a low ratio was often used as a selling point. --Jareddr 15:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Corry 08:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Timetable for withdrawal

I think the article summary for this article on the mainpage is misleading. Although Zebari is quoted as saying:

"We have said that this is a condition-driven process," he added, suggesting that the departure schedule could be modified if the security situation changed."

The article immediately goes on to say:

But Zebari made clear that the Iraqis would not accept a deal that lacks a timeline for the end of the U.S. military presence.
"No, no definitely there has to be a very clear timeline," Zebari replied when asked if the Iraqis would accept an agreement that did not mention dates.

So, it seems to me, the article summary on the mainpage gets it exactly backwards. Am I missing something? TJason 14:47, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


Beijing Chicanery

It might also be worth mentioning the allegations that China is cheating by fielding gymnasts who are considerably underage. --Benp 23:08, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I am not sure how "deceitful" the use of imaging was, consideringit was mentioned during the broadcast. They didn't try to hide it very much if they let news agencies know about it. Boomcoach 09:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I also heard that the little girl who sang was actually miming, because the girl - who I thought had the voice of an angel - was too "ugly" for TV. --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 07:03, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
That's true. Additionally, a number of the fireworks in the opening ceremony (the footsteps walking along Beijing) were faked. More to the point, the Chinese are arresting our British reporters at the event. Such censorship is against conservative principles, and I think we should be condemning it in the strongest possible terms here. MikeR 22:56, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

News Section

The story that starts with: Barack Obama has a Catholic problem, please add Sen. Bob Casey as an internal link--jp 00:02, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 01:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

For what it's worth...

... the media relations department at Chicago Law told me he (Obama) was offered a tenured position as well. It may have been a phenomenally stupid thing to do, but as far as the School is concerned it happened. Aziraphale 12:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Would a tenure-upon-hire offer have to be voted on by the faculty like normal tenure? If so, isn't there something deceptive in saying they "offered" Obama tenure, when really it could only be approved by a faculty vote? TJason 13:00, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Right. No legitimate offer could have been made without a faculty vote.--Aschlafly 13:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, it was an illegitimate offer. I'm not defending the offer, but the University of Chicago Law School says they made it, through their media relations folks; and if you think the MR department didn't vet an answer to a question like this ... well, you're all too smart to think that, so analogies are unnecessary. Aziraphale 17:50, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree. It's not like I think University of Chicago Law School forgot they had to get a faculty vote (if that is indeed the case). The question is whether they are going to bat for Obama as many suspected they did in the "Professor-Gate" case. TJason 18:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Sysops list?

Who are the Sysops? The page that's linked to from Conservapedia:User_rights which is Special:Listusers/sysop is broken - is there another list? I'm asking as I need the Rape article unlocked and the locking sysop User:Elamdri has not edited in a year. DefenderofTrue 17:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

The list is here. Click the "Sysop List" link at the bottom of the page. --DeanStalk 20:51, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
If there's an admin who could help, the links on Conservapedia:User rights need to be changed to be of the form ([[Special:Listusers/edit]], [[Special:Listusers/Upload]], [[Special:Listusers/Block]], etc). --Interiot 09:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Edwards

I am absolutely not defending John Edwards; there is no legitimate defense for him. But, after all, Newt Gingrich also cheated on his wife while she was battling cancer, and Newt quite successfully remained in politics. So, why is it so awful that Edwards' supporters wonder if he can stay in politics? There is precedent. (Again, I'm not condoning the behavior of either Edwards or Gingrich.)--Leansleft 07:27, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Ummm....isn't it pretty much common knowledge that John McCain cheated on his wife? He political career seems on track. Why is Edwards an exception? JamesTy 11:13, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. Edwards' behavior was detestable, but so was McCains - he came back from Vietnam to find his once-beautiful first wife, Carol Shepp, disfigured and crippled from a car accident, and has publicly acknowledged that it was his behavior after that point that was responsible for the end of that marriage. His relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley began while still married to Shepp, and he is careful to avoid judging others for failings similar to his. --DinsdaleP 13:17, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Agreed as well, McCain cheated on his wife, shouldn't certain people be campaigning for his removal? I'm a strong conservative, and I believe in Conservative values - god knows I've spent the last 20 years defending Thatcher - but I'm not comfortable with this concept of attack politics you have in the United States. To European eyes, it looks a bit cheap. We should be able to fight political battles very easily based on the policies and principles. MikeR 22:53, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Edwards' rank duplicity seems far more egregious than your other examples. Far starters, the published accounts are not simply that he had an affair. Comparing Edwards' conduct to McCain is like comparing Aaron Burr to George Washington.--Aschlafly 23:12, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
I fail to see how comparing one adulterer to another is anything like comparing Burr to Washington, even if the rumors about Edwards fathering a child you refer to are true. Regardless of party affiliation, people seem to have an uncanny ability to cut people slack over their past behavior, which is why someone like David Duke could get 19% of the vote in a Republican primary. -DinsdaleP 12:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
But the comparison of Edwards to Gingrich seems valid.
While we’re on the subject of McCain--he is wise to avoid that issue. Unfortunately, many powerful men have that particular weakness. Have we forgotten the Clinton cesspool? It was difficult to find anyone in Congress to stand as his accuser; even conservative Republicans were living in glass houses. (RIP, Strom.)--Leansleft 08:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I have to agree here. Adultery is adultery. The Bible makes no distinction between degrees of adultery. The conduct of all three men should rightly be condemned by those concerned about morality and the degradation of marriage. Let us not set aside sound morals in the name of politics; our morals should dictate our politics, not the other way around. --Benp 13:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Typical liberal reaction to California ruling on Christian schools

See it on the Democrat Underground here. Joy, cheering, mocking, ridiculing. So much for the party of tolerance and acceptance. Yet they still demand that we accept that their kooky New Age nonsense. Jinxmchue 10:09, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Who cares what they are saying at Democratic Underground? We cheer at our political victories, why wouldn't they cheer at theirs? TJason 10:53, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
To be fair, I looked at the judgement today, and it was pretty fair. Don't get me wrong, I completely support the wider point, but the guys who tried to push this case to begin with were really, really amateurish in the way that they did it, and they've done more harm than good in my opinion. MikeR 22:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

The Associated Press promotes Barack Obama...

I thought it was official that Obama is, at least, a practicing Christian? Despite whether or not you think his views allow him to express that faith, I thought we were all past using his name as an indication of being a Muslim. JK899 00:15, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

His middle name Hussein! Does that remind you of anyone?!--Pakhyongshin 00:37, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I think this business about Obama's name is about the lowest common denominator we have yet found for political debate. Are you more likely to be Catholic for being named "Benedict," or president for "George?" There are real issues in this election. This isn't one of them. Corry 09:31, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Folks, we don't fall for the self-serving liberal claptrap here, whether it is considered "official" by the Associated Press or not. If you think the Associated Press is the oracle of truth about whether Obama is a Christian, then help yourself to its news feeds. Logic indicates that the AP hasn't a clue, obviously.--Aschlafly 09:48, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not talking about the AP, I'm talking about your claim that because of Obama's name that he can't be a Christian when you posted that "The Associated Press promotes Barack Obama by declaring him to be a Christian (despite his Muslim name)." I don't see how his name can preclude him from any particular religion. A person can be named Andy and be a Muslim, can't they? Corry 10:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
So saying Obama is a christian is "self-serving liberal claptrap?" That's why you're the laughingstock of the Internet, Andy. I challenge you to show an shred of credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim, innuendo and conservative smears notwithstanding. JamesTy 10:15, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Everybody can delude himself by proclaiming to be Christian. I'm sure Adolf Hitler said he was Christian too. It's the actions that make you Christian. I haven't seen much Christian behaviour in Obama (but then I don't follow US Democratic Politics so much). SilvioB 10:25, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
But would you say that he cannot be a Christian because of his name? That line of reasoning is what I am arguing against. Corry 10:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
That name implies he wasn't raised Christian. But in a political career it's oh-so-easy to proclaim oneself Christian for political gain. His acts as - hopefully not! - US President will tell whether he is really Christian or not. SilvioB 10:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Even if he wasn't, for the sake of argument, can he not convert? The statement "The Associated Press promotes Barack Obama by declaring him to be a Christian (despite his Muslim name)" implies that because of his name he cannot be a Christian. He attends church. He says he's a Christian. To claim that he isn't because of his name is just a diversion from legitimate issues. Corry 10:40, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
His name cannot be used to imply anything. There are many Christians in the middle east that have the same type of names. These names are indicative of their original usage. You would not expect to see Jim, Mike or Steve on a childs birth certificate from localities outside of the US, Canada, or Western Europe. As he has mixed heritage, one should expect to see a mixed name, with them coming from influences from his parents. In this modern age, in the US, a person's name is just a manner of address. To infer anything else beyond that is completely unwarranted. Innkeeper 10:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree. I think the name issue is completely baseless. Corry 11:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely. On that basis, I'd suppose Archbishop D. Tutu is not a Christian, either. The continued attacks on Obama over nonsense like this, or lapel-pins, is instead showing a shortage of credible attacks based on issues of substance. -DinsdaleP 11:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
The words "intellectual bankruptcy" come to mind. Corry 12:01, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Self-serving claims by a politician of being a Christian obviously do not make him one. When much evidence points against the politician's claim, then voters should be skeptical of it. If you can't accept that logic, then you're not going to progress beyond it.

Those who continue to engage in name-calling here will be blocked pursuant to our rules.--Aschlafly 12:02, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama went to that church for what, twenty years? CP is one step away from outright accusing him of being a Muslim sleeper agent.--Frey 12:05, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Amidst much handwaving, you completely dodge the question at hand, which is "What does Obama's name have to do with whether he is a Christian or not?" TJason 12:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict)Yes. How can Obama's name preclude him from being a Christian, as you implied when you posted "The Associated Press promotes Barack Obama by declaring him to be a Christian (despite his Muslim name)" on the main page? That is my question. Corry 12:10, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Nobody here is "accusing" anyone, Frey. But Aschafly is right. Guys, it's blatantly obvious to anyone who's paying attention. (1) His name is Barack Obama. That's not a Christian name. (2) His middle name is Hussein. That's the same name as Saddam Hussein, who certainly wasn't a Christan! (3) He went to a Muslim school (Madarassah) in Indonesia. (4) He married a Muslim. When you put that all together in order, it sounds pretty d--ning, doesn't it now?? --Annie 12:11, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I can use that line of reasoning to prove almost anything. For example - I claim that George W. Bush is a Texas Ranger. Guys, it's blatantly obvious to anyone who's paying attention. (1) His name is George Bush. That sounds like a name a ranger could have. (2) His middle name is "Walker". That's the same name as Walker, the Texas Ranger on the Chuck Norris TV show, who certainly was a Texas Ranger! (3) He is from Texas, just like all Texas Rangers. (4) I've seen him in a cowboy hat and heard him say things like "Wanted - dead or alive", certainly things that Texas Ranger would say. When you put all that together in order, it sounds pretty d--ning, doesn't it now??
Corry, do you have trouble with the concept of "correlation" also? If I gave you a random Muslim name, and asked if that person was Muslim, would you insist that you have absolutely no idea? How about Osama bin Laden?. Think he's Christian also?--Aschlafly 12:13, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Obfuscation. I'm arguing that you cannot conclude that Obama's not a Christian because of his name. Does "correlation" mean that because Obama's name sounds Muslim that he is Muslim? Corry 12:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
And of course I would have to insist that I have absolutely no idea unless I know that person or know of them. Any other response would be deceitful. Corry 12:35, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Corry, that is known as deliberate ignorance. A Muslim name indicates a high probably that the person is Muslim, due to a high correlation between Muslim names and being Muslim.
I wonder if you extend your approach to other issues. If you overhear a family speaking German, do you insist that you have absolutely no idea whether they are German?--Aschlafly 12:41, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
I couldn't be sure that they are German because they could also be Austrian or Swiss, not to mention from Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, or north Italy. Corry 12:51, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
As a side note: I know three individuals who speak Arabic. If I were to make the assumption that they hailed from a predominantly Arabic-speaking nation, I would be wrong in two of the three cases (a married couple who hail from Israel and learned Arabic while serving in the Israeli armed forces.) This is true despite the fact that there is a strong general correlation between those who speak Arabic and those who were raised in Arabic-speaking nations. A general correlation cannot be applied to a specific case reliably. --Benp 15:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
So Barack might be Sikh or Jain or Ba'hai, not to mention Coptic? That doesn't change the fact that he's probably Muslim. Overwhelmingly probably Muslim. --Annie 12:57, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Aschlafly, it is you who don't understand the concept of "correlation". Here's a simple example: A person who attends a Christian church for twenty years and who repeatedly affirms their faith in Jesus Christ is probably a Christian. Claiming otherwise, especially by making spurious arguments which basically amount to "he has a few common Muslim features, therefore he is a Muslim", is the height of deceit. What the front page is implying is that Obama's "Muslim name" precludes him from being a Christian. This is entirely ridiculous. Islam is not a language and Arabic is not a religion. There are Christians, Jews and atheists with Arabic names.Egen 12:55, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Of course you couldn't tell whether someone was a Muslim because of their name. That's ridiculous. Imagine that I said this "The media continues to portray John Walker Lindh as a Muslim (despite his Christian name)." Would that be persuasive at all? No. The name given to you at birth is irrelevant to your religion. But that is exactly your argument.TJason 12:25, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, John Walker Lindh had a christian father (just like Obama had a "Muslim" father) went to a christian school "like Obama "went" to a Madarassah). His Middle name is Walker, which is also the middle name of our President (who is most certianly not a Muslim). Of course, NONE of this is evidence that JWL is a Christian. Yet somehow, all of these facts about Obama ARE evidence that he is a Muslim. TJason 12:45, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

You're all wasting your time with these arguments. No amount of seemingly sound logic is going to cause Aschlafly to suddenly remove the headline, or go and change the entire Obama article. You might as well try and convince a brick wall that it's not a window---you may be correct but no amount of time arguing with the brick wall is going to change anything. Go make edits around CP, or talk to an "undecided" voter---it'll be time better spent and may lead to a sense of accomplishment at the end. --Jareddr 12:54, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal namecalling now, are we? --Annie 12:57, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused now. Does CP think Obama is a Muslim? Or does CP think Obama is not a Christian? The two questions are not the same. As to the latter question, the members of the United Church of Christ, in which Christian church Obama was a full member until recently, regarded Obama (as the UCC members regard themselves) as Christian. Since many conservative Christians do not regard members of liberal Christian churches (such as the UCC) as true Christians, I assume that therein lies the root of the question. Debating whether self-declared Christians, or "liberal" Christians (Congregationalists, Unitarians, Quakers, et al.), are True Christians is, I suppose, legitimate. But I still don't see anywhere any evidence of Obama's supposed Islamic beliefs or practices. Bearing the name his parents gave him and attending an Islamic school as a youngster doesn't really mean much. Are all those who attended Catholic schools, or Quaker schools, Catholics as grown-ups? Or Quakers? Or Christians? Are all those who attended secular schools secular humanists as grown-ups? I do understand why CP doesn't think Obama is Christian, but I remain perplexed about the evidence that he adheres to the religion of Islam.--Leansleft 14:26, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's just an unfortunate example of using religion to attack a person and manipulating the memory of tragic events for a political end. Corry 14:51, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
There's a great story about Lyndon Johnson's campaign for Congress which I won't repeat here. The punchline, of course, runs: "I know. I just want to make him deny it." --Frieda 14:52, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


User:Pakhyongshin said: "His middle name Hussein! Does that remind you of anyone?!"
...Famous cricketer Nasser Hussein? MikeR 15:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Who, oddly enough, isn't a Muslim! TJason 15:40, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

OK, so back to the question I asked, should the phrase say "claim Obama is a Christian (despite his Muslim name)"? I mean, can we say he's not a Christian? It's been pointed out that he attended a Christian church, despite how much it seems that a key member of that church espoused views that many consider unchristian (nice wording there, eh?), and I'm not sure that his wife is Muslim. I mean, isn't Eisenhower kind of a Jewish name? Didn't Ike do some very pro-Christian things while in office? I don't know. What I'm asking is: Does the sentence as is assume too much? Aschafly, should it be at least given another look? I also don't consider the AP the oracle of truth on anything, I can't remember a time I've ever actually sought it out to read it. JK899 21:31, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

To our Liberal friends...

From the article linked in the news section: "You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help."

"You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states."

Uh... it's phrases like these that absolutely disgusts me, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with the rest of the points. I'm sure Conservapedia does not allow speculative phrases like "...probably couldn't find either country on a map" - which serves absolutely no purpose except to groundlessly attack someone's intelligence - so why does it promote such phrases by linking it?

The second quote is such silliness. Both of them obviously made mistakes, but they are inconsequential at most. Mocking the media's obsession over silly little mistakes is equally bad.

This article simply brings out the worst in both parties. ATang 10:11, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


Antivirus Site

A quick question: the other day, when I attempted to access Conservapedia, my browser kept attempting to redirect me to what I strongly suspect was a malware site. Although I didn't click on the link it brought up, I'm concerned about the possibility of infection. Did anyone else experience this, and, if so, is there any information on this site and potential risks stemming from it?

Thanks in advance-- --Benp 13:11, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

You can run a virus scan on your computer, which is always a good idea anyway. I ran one on mine just recently and it found nothing. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:18, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


Thanks. I did so; I'm just a little paranoid at the moment, since I recently had to reformat my hard drive to get rid of a particularly nasty virus that my antivirus software couldn't deal with. --Benp 13:22, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
The same thing happend to me. TJason 13:48, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
We're in the process of gathering the information for law enforcement to prosecute anyone responsible for such vandalism. It's amazing how some criminals think they can try to harm sites and not be prosecuted for it. Lots of people are learning that, surprise, surprise, the law applies to vandalism on the internet too.--Aschlafly 13:51, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
The site I was re-directed to was h*tp://scanner.antivir64.com/?aff=1050.TJason 13:54, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
It looks like this site got hacked by the same people 5 days ago, maybe you guys could compare notes. --Interiot 14:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Same thing happened to me....same antivir64 attempt at redirection. Amout this time yesterday. AlanE 15:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

The IP address that caused the vandalism traces to Charter Communications in the Ozarks. The vandalism likely violated both federal and Missouri law. Contact information for reporting this to Charter would be helpful so it can trace the IP address further.--Aschlafly 16:22, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Reporting Abuse FAQ --Jareddr 16:31, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if it's related, but OneNewsNow.com (AFA's news site) and some other sites got hacked/vandalized a couple days back. They're thinking it was from outside the U.S., though. [12] Jinxmchue 17:09, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. Lots of people don't like the truth, that's for sure. Too bad they prefer to deny and distort it, rather than accept it and help themselves and others with it.
I reported the attack on our site to Charter Communications, along with the precise details. The originating city for IP address in our case is Lake Ozark, Missouri, and if Charter confirms that it is the real location then we'll report it to the local state and federal prosecutors there. It's amazing how internet vandals waste their time in committing crimes.--Aschlafly 17:21, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Affiliate ID → they're making money off of it. If anyone who went to the "anti-spyware" site accidentally installed the program it offers, then it reports there's a lot of problems (that are fake), and then encourages the user to pay money for the version that will "fix" their "problems". And it's difficult to uninstall, and it keep pestering you. (if anyone did this, try using a legitimate anti-spyware utility to remove it)
Casual wiki vandalism is very different from people who break in and modify files on the server's filesystem. It can be impossible to know if they still have a backdoor without totally rebuilding the system. Whereas on a wiki, you click revert and all damage is fixed. --Interiot 18:00, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Advice Please

My name is Peter, which is obviously a very Christian name. I realized recently however that one's name should absolutely reflect one's religious beliefs, so I would like some advice as to a possible ignostic humanist name to which I could change. Just as Barack would have to pick up a new name if he was really a Christian, I really feel that I need to change my name to be true to my philosophy. My only problem is that I'm having trouble finding a good ignostic humanist name. Maybe I should just take a pagan name... I'm thinking Vercingetorix. Can you guys help me out? Rockthecasbah 21:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

How about 'Heath'? Short for Heathen? lol Liberalnproud 11:42, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Trouble South of the Border

Hey guys,

I've been reading a lot about the Mexican economy lately and they've been having a lot of problems with their oil industry. I think, since the United States gets a lot of their oil from Mexico, that this should be of great concern. Their President came out and said that within five to seven years we might not be able to get any oil from them. This should be something we're talking about. Here are a couple good articles about the crisis:

http://www.thepropagandareport.com/2008/08/14/72/

... that's a pretty liberal site, but they do a good job putting the facts together. They give a history of the situation and some information about the current reform debate going on in the government.

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/august/6/mexican_energy/

... that's another good site.

Thanks guys, --Claypool 15:14, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Jewelry store

I hope they won't make it so to rob another jewelry store another day. This is one reason why I admire America so much. In Europe Mr. Vazquez would go to jail for "unjustified use of violence" or some similar crap, while the robbers, with help and pity and permissive laws would perhaps completely avoid jail! SilvioB 18:31, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah I agree, since jewelry is more valuable than life. Rockthecasbah 18:59, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

So you are for a lawless society, where evil and violence rule? SilvioB 19:09, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
SilvioB, I would argue that your hyptothetical would not happen. As the robbers wouldn't likely have access to a gun (not a for sure, but just not likely) there would have been another issue. As for your idea of punishment. I seriously doubt the robbers would be set free while the shop owner gets jail time. If anyone can point out any example of this happening in history, I'll be glad to retract and apologise Jamal Greene 19:59, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
The gun control in England has led to much murder by knives and also intrusions by burglars into homes while the residents are there. Neither happens as much when good folks like Mr. Vazquez can defend himself with a gun.--Aschlafly 20:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, in Britain violent crime has been steadily falling since its peak in 1995 under a Conservative Government. WillD 20:37, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I doubt that is true when the data are age-adjusted. Britain has a rapidly aging population, and of course crime diminishes with age. Moreover, robberies and burglaries need to be included in any analysis. Home burglaries and muggings have increased in Britain, I think.--Aschlafly 23:50, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
WillD's clueless and insulting intervention ignores (deliberately?) the advent of a socialist government in 1997 which had a vested interest in pretending that crime was declining by cooking the books. Furthermore, the spinelessness of Britain's criminal justice system encourages the under-reporting of violent crimes. Why bother, if police and courts do nothing? We nee dthe Vazquez solution here. 11:41, 17 August 2008 (EDT)Bugler
I don't see how my points were 'clueless', or 'insulting', as you say Bugler. To answer Mr Schlafly's points, Robbery has fallen 16% this last year, and Buglary has fallen 4% see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511192.stm (the graph half way down)- also regarding age adjustment, crime has fallen 48% overall since 1995, which would seem to be outside the reach of an age factor. WillD 13:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, how is it that the murder rate in the US is about 5.7 per year per 100,000 people, whereas the figure is 2.03 in the UK? Surely those well-armed Americans should be able to defend themselves with their guns? What's happening? I note too that the rate in Australia (which also has strict gun control) is 1.28. Why aren't they all getting stabbed in their sleep? Could it be that having many guns out there in society leads to more people getting shot? Call me crazy but it's a theory. --DenningMR 20:54, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I won't call you crazy but I hope you're sensible enough to realize that you're comparing apples to oranges. The demographics, drug addiction, and cultures are very different in the populations you compare, thereby rendering direct comparisons meaningless. Britain has a higher murder rate than Switzerland, where adults are required to have guns. Why don't you make that comparison also?--Aschlafly 23:50, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Intentional homicides per 100,000 (2004): England & Wales 1.62, Scotland 2.56, Switzerland 2.94 (source) --Jalapeno 11:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I did not see that categorization on your link. This article states that the murder rate is lower in Switzerland than England, and that half of the murders in Switzerland are by foreigners. [13]
Page 1 of the document I linked to describes the categories. The article you refer to is out of date -- it is dated June 4, 1999 and uses no figures more recent than 1997. It was true that Switzerland had a lower homicide rate than the UK, but since 2001 it has been higher. --Jalapeno 13:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, the rate for the UK is 2.03. Further, your apples and oranges comment is a bit odd. I would have thought that culturally the UK, the US and Australia are more closely related to each other than any of them are to Switzerland. --DenningMR 16:53, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Your data show that the murder rate has gone UP, not down, since gun control was imposed in England. During the same time period, the murder rate in the U.S. has fallen sharply.
The murder rate in Switzerland (where everyone owns a gun) doubled earlier this decade for reasons that require explanation. The one explanation I saw was that foreigners were responsible, which of course is no indictment of the ownership of guns by citizens. If anything, it reinforces the need for an armed citizenry.--Aschlafly 17:05, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
The rate in the US has not fallen sharply but has remained steady. Not only that but it remains at a staggering 5.7. The rate in Australia has fallen. Your love of guns appears to be blinding you. Open your mind. --DenningMR 17:24, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Silvio, if there was a society where evil and violence ruled, jewelry store owners would most definitely be allowed to shoot would-be thieves. Rockthecasbah 23:43, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

"Rockthecasbah", your incoherent comments are getting tiresome. Contribute some value to the encyclopedia, or please go elsewhere. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:50, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

This is exactly why gun control is needed. Mr Vazquez has risked not only his life, but the lives of an employee and a bystander by pulling his gun. If everybody is armed the only way out is for someone to get shot, and it's not always the "bad guy." He should have cooperated with the intruders and left it to the police to deal with. Surely he has insurance! --KingOfNothing 20:32, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Apologies for veering away from the current direction this topic has taken, but it seems to me that the news headline is a little misleading. The headline indicates a very cut and dry situation of a store owner successfully defending his shop by shooting two would-be robbers. However, the article which the headline is linked to reports a much more messy situation than the headline claims. Four were injured in all, two of which are in critical condition at the hospital. The article gives no indication as to which two. I assume that at least one of them is an assailant (Multiple gunshot wounds to the chest reported) but the other could very well have been the store employee or bystander who were both shot. This article seems to me to be a clear case against widespread civilian use of firearms. There is even a link in the article to a story about a cop who was shot and killed by a suspect armed with a gun. Without attempting to to push my point of the view on the issue I feel it would be a good idea to change the headline so as to more accurately reflect the article which it links to. Conservapedia is already accused of enough severe bias and misleading statements without adding more fodder onto the main page. Just a thought. --Nicholas 12:13, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

No, that's not correct. The store employee was merely shot in the leg, which ordinarily is not a serious-to-critical injury. The odds seem high that the two severely injured persons were the thugs who tried to rob the store.
It's unfortunate that biased newspaper accounts obscure the truth, making it less than clear who suffered the severe injury. Note, however, that the thugs might have simply murdered the store owner had he not had a gun for self-defense. Such murders in robberies are common.--Aschlafly 12:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
What is not correct? I'm not sure which part you mean. I really can't tell from the article whether the person shot in the leg suffered serious injuries or not, the article does not provide that information. That is why I did not specifically site the wound since it would have been pure speculation. I find that speculation and assumption lead down roads which I would personally rather not travel.
One would think that a leg wound would be less damaging than a chest wound, however a cursory knowledge of human anatomy tells us that there are a number of important arteries and veins in the leg, especially above the knee. My grandfather was a surgeon and almost my entire family practices some type of medicine. I've personally known a man who was shot in the head and was out of the hospital in two days, and I've heard of others who were shot in the leg and died on the table. Assuming the odds is fine, as long as one doesn't present them as factual truth. In this case it seems that the odds are fairly equal each way for who is and isn't in critical condition. What assumptions are made are up to the discretion of the editors here, I am just pointing them out as assumptions rather than fact.
I really can't comment on the rest since I am not particularly knowledgeable of that news source or the number of murders and robberies occurring in that state.--Nicholas 13:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

"Dr. Phyllis Schlafly"

I wanted to ask, with no disrespect for Mrs. Schlafly, if it's appropriate to refer to her as "Dr. Schlafly" when her doctorate was an honorary one. -DinsdaleP 11:24, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Funny how that title bothers liberals, many of whom absurdly protested it. Do liberals really think they can claim exclusive control of knowledge, or recognition of knowledge?--Aschlafly 11:36, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I suspect they do, Andy. Bugler 11:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT) <doesn't know whether to laugh or cry>

I believe that DinsdaleP offered a valid point. Recipients of Honorary degrees normally are not referred to as "Doctor". With that being said Mrs. Schlafly can use the acronym "Hon. D.H.L." (Correct me if I am wrong but I believe she received an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters). This is just proper etiquette it has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.--Able806 12:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Do you think the liberal protests against conferring the degree were also "proper etiquette"??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:10, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Not really, an honorary degree is not something people should take light. While most were protesting her stance on issues, she has been identified as a pillar and contributed to many efforts, thus I find her honorary perfectly acceptable.--Able806 12:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

How magnanimous of you, Able. Liberals and atheists are quick to whine about imagined disrespect to 'Professor' Dawkins. But holders of properly-conveyed honorary doctorates are perfectly entitled to use the title (as many do, contrary to the statement by Able806), while pound-shop professors emphatically should not. Bugler 12:19, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Gee, Able806, that's so very kind and gracious of you! But you still don't seem to grasp how liberals try to claim exclusive control of knowledge and its recognition, and how you should be objecting to that.
The close-minded liberals were not simply protesting her stance on issues, but were demanding complete liberal control over the recognition of knowledge. And if you don't object to that, then like the other close-minded liberals you're not going to reach your potential.--Aschlafly 12:22, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I do not understand the basis of the animosity you both are demonstrating towards me for commenting about an issue that is based on proper etiquette. I said I did not agree with the protest, all I stated was the correct usage of an honorary degree in terms of addressing. Bugler, you are incorrect. While there are a few exceptions of honoree’s using the title "dr." it is frowned upon by etiquette standards for it cheapens the non-honorary degree. Andy, I am assuming that you are making a claim that the college environment is liberal and thus has control since they are the only ones that can offer degrees? If that is the case then I will not disagree. I do not quite understand your claim that I am a close minded liberal. Would Francis Collins be considered a close minded liberal in your book? If so, since he and I share the same views on many topics I would have to say that I am. You both made statements that could be misconstrued as cheapening my comment that I felt Mrs. Schlafly deserved the degree, I find it poor taste. She did deserve it on the basis of the work and effort she has put forth, pure and simple. While I do not agree with some of her stances, I believe the university made no mistake in awarding the degree. Quite honestly, I am disheartened by your response towards serious comments that supported Mrs. Schlafly’s claim to the degree.--Able806 12:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

As the person who asked the original question, I wanted to point out that I qualified it by explicitly stating that no disrespect was meant for Mrs. Schlafly. While I disagree with several of her views, her accomplishments on behalf of the conservative movement are indisputable, as is the legitimacy of the honorary doctorate from Washington University whether one agrees with that or not. I was asking a simple question about etiquette and standards in reporting, and don't appreciate people getting over-defensive and attacking my character and claiming that I'm trying to control knowledge or recognition of it. So once again, the simple, unbiased question is this: is it proper reporting/etiquette to refer to someone with an honorary doctorate as "Doctor", or should it be refrained from in consideration of doctorates earned academically instead? -DinsdaleP 13:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Do both of you object with equal vigor to use of the title "professor" by those liberal favorites, Barack Obama and Richard Dawkins???--Aschlafly 14:20, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I didn't realize that an answer to an etiquette question wouldn't be forthcoming unless I passed a test of political correctness first. -DinsdaleP 14:23, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, how exactly does Obama and Dawkins have anything to do with honorific etiquette? The point of this conversation is about how to address properly the title of a person who earned an honorific doctorate. The answer applies to equally to liberals and conservatives.--Able806 14:57, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm all for consistency, and merely asked if you were being consistent in objecting to use of other academic titles that were either never formally conferred or not conferred in the customary manner.--Aschlafly 15:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, that is entirely off topic. The question was how to address Mrs. Schlafly properly due to her honorary doctorate, not if there was a question of if she received one. We all agree that she received an honorary degree. To answer your question, if the institution that awards the title recognizes the title then I believe that it is not wrong for the person to be associated with it. You have a B.S.E.; most schools list that degree as a Bachelor Science with a specialty in engineering, thus B.S. If your institution listed it as a B.S.E. then you are not wrong for using that form, however, if your institution only awarded B.S. then you would be wrong, just like a Ph.D. trying to use a D.Sc. interchangeably with their Ph.D. I believe that DinsdaleP's question was addressed, in written form Mrs. Schlafly would use the suffix "Hon. D.H.L." or "D.H.L." since that particular degree is only used as an honor. Due to etiquette it would be incorrect to refer to her as "Dr." unless it was distinguished as an honorary.--Able806 16:05, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, your responses keep sidestepping the basic etiquette question being posed and instead keep trying to turn it into a discussion about whether the titles held by individuals you detest are legitimate or not. Since you apparently have no interest in providing a straightforward answer to a straightforward question asked in a respectful manner, I'll consider the question dropped because it's not being taken seriously. It's also worth mentioning that if I had attacked a CP sysop's character the way mine was above, I'd be cooling off in a block right now, but that level of respect is only expected in one direction, apparently. -DinsdaleP 16:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Everybody can get a Ph.D. these days, but a honorific doctorate is reserved to illustrious people only, who have contributed to the knowledge or well-being of the entire humanity. I can't understand how someone would consider "doctorate" more valuable than "honorable doctorate" - unless they have a (liberal) agenda of course. SilvioB 16:33, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well put, Silvio.
Dinsdale, I'm baffled by your feigned offense and pursuit of this issue. When I merely asked if you were as diligent in objecting to liberals who use academic titles in a questionable way, you get huffy and refuse to address it.
What's the point of an honorary degree if its honor can never, ever be used to refer to someone?
Meanwhile, Obama himself claims authority by falsely insisting he's a "professor", and yet you won't lift a finger to criticize him for it.--Aschlafly 16:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
According to the dreaded Wikipedia,
"Recipients of an honorary doctorate do not normally adopt the title of "doctor". In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, it is not usual for an honorary doctor to use the formal title of "doctor", regardless of the background circumstances for the award."
Bringing Dawkins and Obama into the discussion is a red herring. Eoinc 16:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Everybody cannot just "get a Ph.D. these days", which is what makes them special, whether honorary or not. Mrs. Schlafly received hers for a lifetime of influential and meaningful contributions to the American political landscape, which are real regardless of whether one agrees with her views or not. Other receive their doctorates after years of academic work and the rigorous defense of dissertations that make original, substantial contributions to the related area of knowledge. For all the praise they have earned though, an honorary Ph.D. from a law school is not a qualification to practice law, and an honorary Ph.D. from a medical school is not a qualification to practice medicine. They are honorariums - significant ones - but still honorariums, which is why most recipients of them choose not to refer to themselves as Ph.D.s, or use the Hon. qualifier.
I asked a simple etiquette question, and your response, "Do liberals really think they can claim exclusive control of knowledge, or recognition of knowledge?" implies that I'm attacking the recognition of Mrs. Schlafly's accomplishments when I clearly was not. I don't appreciate having words put into my mouth so those words can be attacked - find the people who said them and refute them, instead. As I said, I'm not pursuing the issue because it's not a big deal to begin with - just a simple question you chose to blow way out of proportion and try to turn into a referendum on Dawkins and Obama. -DinsdaleP 17:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, I do have opinions on the legitimacy of the titles used by Obama and Dawkins, but in this context those are red herrings, as Eoinc said above. -DinsdaleP 17:07, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Dindsale, if you'll state your opinion on Obama's own claim to be a professor, and Dawkins' own claims about his academic title, then I'll state my opinion about an occasional use by someone else of "Dr." in referring to someone who received an honorary degree. Please feel no compulsion in accepting this offer.--Aschlafly 17:13, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I'll pass, thanks, because a straightforward question asked respectfully deserves a respectful, straightforward response, not a round of "answer my unrelated question first" pre-qualifications. Like I said, it wasn't that big a deal until you made it one. -DinsdaleP 17:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I must point out that even the CP pages on Dawkins and Obama state (after months of debate) that Dawkins "is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University", and that Obama "was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1996 to 2004 as a senior lecturer and professor". Dawkins' and Obama's claims about their academic titles, it seems, are quite justified. Eoinc 17:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for pointing out the liberal vandalism. Oh how liberals claim credentials for themselves, while denying them for conservatives! I've corrected the vandalism.--Aschlafly 18:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Vandalism? If we just take Dawkins, Oxford University claims that he is a professor. You may dislike Dawkins, or Oxford University, but if official university sources say that Dawkins was appointed as a professor, how can you claim otherwise? Eoinc 18:42, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Your link is not the university site, and you can find all the answers to your questions in the talk pages here on Richard Dawkins. I'm not going spend another couple days explaining this truth to liberals who refuse to accept it.--Aschlafly 18:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
My link is to the university site. Oxford University's official homepage is www.ox.ac.uk. The page I linked to was www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk, and was linked to via the main page. I have also browsed the talk page on the Dawkins page and was directed to other sources including the University Gazette and two Freedom of Information responses directly from the University confirming that Dawkins is a professor, and (in the case of the FOIA responses) that the professorship was properly conferred. If Dawkins is not a professor at Oxford University, I would be very surprised if he had gotten away with such an outrageous claim for so long. Can you provide any official statement from the University to that effect? Eoinc 19:00, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Those of us in cricket playing nations will be reminded of the great Doctor Shane Warne. AlanE 17:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


(Unindent) Oh, for Heaven's sake. Folks: is this issue really worth this kind of argument? We're not even talking about whether it's appropriate for Mrs. Schlafly to use the title "Doctor"; we're talking about whether those talking about her can use the title. It's a minor point of etiquette, at very best; you might as well be devoting paragraphs to arguing over whether it's proper to use a fish fork on your salad.

I think the real, unspoken issue behind these complaints is consistency; people want to try to make Andy and other editors here out to be hypocritical for using the title. Personally, I think it's dirty pool. First off, the site DOES refer to Obama and Dawkins by their titles, regardless of any questions of legitimacy; hence, there's no inconsistency. Second, we're talking about Andy's mother, folks. C'mon--doesn't he have a right to be proud of her accomplishments? Doesn't the fact that he's her flesh and blood entitle him to a little bit of leeway on this issue?

Should I ever have the opportunity to meet Mrs. Schlafly, I will call her "ma'am." Surely the title doesn't matter so much, as long as the person is being addressed with respect? --Benp 19:35, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I have tried to keep out of this debate, as it seems to be a dead end... but from what I see, it boils down to this: The liberals on the site are attacking ASchlafly, claiming a hypocritical stance in his refusing to accept the professorship of Richard Dawkins and the (claimed?) professorship of Barack Obama, while at the same time defending the honorary Dr before Mrs. Schlafly on the main page. However, the simple fact is that family ties are very strange things and noone is going to change ASchlafly's stance in this. He will defend his mother (as rightly he should) forever. Therefore, I advise everyone to simply drop the matter and move on. The main page item will be lost to archives shortly, and there is no need for everyone to start slinging mud over such a minor point. Jamal Greene 19:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
BenP, I agree with you, to an extent. I initially joined in the discussion on etiquette to report that, at least according to Wikipedia, there is no universal rule about usage; that the title is generally not used if it is honorary; but that its use is not unheard of - ie, that CP was doing nothing wrong by referring to Phyllis Schlafly by the title of "Dr". However, I disagree with the second half of your post. Aschlafly is the founder of this encyclopedia, but that fact does not make him the ultimate arbiter of truth. Eoinc 19:57, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


The ultimate arbiter of truth, no. The ultimate arbiter of what standards are and are not appropriate for the website he created and maintains, yes. I do not agree with Mr. Schlafly on everything, but as I see it, this is his house, and his rules, and I believe in respecting that. I'm certainly not going to fault him for being proud of his mother's accomplishments and giving them a little recognition. --Benp 23:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't have time to respond fully to Eoinc's, JamalG's and other critical comments now. It would be helpful if more would appreciate the difference between someone incorrectly claiming a title for himself (e.g., Obama and Dawkins - note that the objection is to the specific title he claimed), and someone occasionally using a title to refer to someone else. If that subtlety is lost on or denied by the critics, then so be it. I'm not going to waste more time explaining it.--Aschlafly 23:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I hate to get involved, but I think it's relevant to point out that the supposed parallel between Obama and Dawkins, on the one hand, and Mrs. Schlafly on the other isn't actually parallel. "Professor" is a job title not unlike "CEO" or "Manager." On the other hand, a Ph.D. is an educational credential. Nobody disputes that Dawkins holds a Ph.D. or Obama a J.D. Likewise, nobody disputes that Mrs. Schlafly holds an honorary Ph.D. The question is whether a holder of an honorary degree is entitled to the same honorific as a holder of the actual (not honorary) degree. Bringing in the "Professor" business is specious as it's an entirely unrelated category of title. -Drek
Drek, to claim that 'Professor' is a job description and not a title is the purest hogwash. Stop it now. Bugler 16:46, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler- I didn't say it was a job description, I said it was a job title. As in, and I quote, "'Professor' is a job title..." Please stop misrepresenting what I have said. Secondly, Professor is, indeed, a job title. That's why there are "Assistant Professors", "Associate Professors", "Full Professors" and so forth- each variant denotes academic rank, often including tenure status. Getting a Ph.D. entitles one to be called "Doctor" but getting the appropriate academic position entitles one to be referred to as "Professor." It is a job title. -Drek

To say that 'professor' is a title in the same way as 'manager' or indeed 'dustman' is absolutely absurd, and please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes with your Liberal denial of the truth. Bugler 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Bugler- If one holds a job as a dustman one is entitled to be referred to as a dustman. If one is a manager one is entitled to be referred to as a manager. Likewise, if one holds a position as a professor then one is entitled to be referred to as such. Professor is a title that derives from one's job position. What would you call it besides "job title"? As for the "liberal denial" bit, I'll tell you what: create a new article called "Liberal Tomfoolery." Make me the flagship case. Decry me to high heaven for engaging in "Liberal Tomfoolery" or mug-wumpery or whatever you like. Let me know how that works out for you. Once you've done all that, however, please come back and respond to me with something- anything- other than name-calling and unsupported assertions. You do not know my political affiliation and you have yet to make a cogent argument about anything. You're merely embarrassing yourself and Conservapedia. Godspeed. -Drek
I'll try ad make it simple for you. If you were a dustman I might refer to you as Drek the dustman. If you were a professor I might refer to you as Drek the professor, or even as Professor Drek. I would address you by the latter title, which is an honorific. Your last two sentences say more about the Liberal mindset and Liberal tricks than anything my poor keyboard could provide. Bugler 18:01, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Drek, do us a favor: teach at a college and then claim you were a "professor" on your resume even though you never formally received that highest title. Watch what happens when a prospective employer learns you weren't really a professor as you claimed. Then see how well your arguments above work with that prospective employer. You'd never get a job again in academia with your approach.--Aschlafly 18:04, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
"Watch what happens when a prospective employer learns you weren't really a professor as you claimed."
Apparently, he'll be asked to run for President. --Benp 18:42, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler- Being referred to as "Professor so-and-so" is an honorific indicating that one has achieved a particular position of employment. There is nothing in your response that contradicts that. Indeed, you have thus far not presented any alternative explanation for how one obtains the title "Professor" if not as a consequence of one's specifc job position. And so long as we're on the subject, I have now been accused of "Liberal Denial" and "Liberal Tricks." I simply cannot wait to see what ad hominem you unfurl against me next. Mr. Schlafly- I have said nothing about how one earns the right to legitimately be referred to as "Professor," I have simply asserted that the title "Professor" is an indicator of one's job. Indeed, earlier in this conversation I remarked, "...getting the appropriate academic position entitles one to be referred to as 'Professor.'" I agree that claiming to be a Professor without having actually been given that job would be a misuse of the title, at the very least, but that's not relevant to the issue at hand. One might as well argue that because referring to oneself as the CEO of Coca-Cola while working in the mailroom would get one fired, that CEO is not a job title. And as long as we're on the subject, the duties of a Professor go far beyond teaching or else there would be scant difference between a 'lecturer' and a 'Professor.' If 'Professor' is not a job title what is it? -Drek


China confiscates Bibles

Well, it looks like the rumors from before the Olympics about the Chinese banning Bibles are turning out to be true. [14]. Can this go on the front page? QWest 16:14, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

How about "China confiscates Bibles of American Christian Missionaries (or Evangelists, whatever)." They haven't confiscated personal Bibles, at least to my admittedly limited knowledge. JK899 19:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

This article is not what it seems on the surface, China does not ban bibles, they simply confiscated hundreds of bibles brought into the country illegally. I am not in favor of religious censorship (which this certainly is) but China has been very upfront about their religious restrictions and it was the people who knowlingly attempted to smuggle the bibles in illegally that are fault here. Jamal Greene 19:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
And what could possibly make a Bible illegal? Why does China fear the spreading of the gospel? QWest 20:05, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Because they see religion as counter-productive to the perfect society, I assume. JK899 20:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
There are many reasons why China bans religion, but one of (if not the) strongest reasons is the attempt to reconcile the past with the present. China is trying very hard to hold onto their Communist roots while expanding and entering a modern global world. It goes without saying that they're finding this very hard to do (as did the entire Soviet Union) and eventually it will fall. In the mean time, however, they will hold the ban on non government sponsered religions (again, something that is morally wrong). However, when visiting a sovern nation, you should respect their laws and customs. If you find them so offensive, there are other places to visit. Jamal Greene 22:14, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Vandal

Little help anyone? WillD 20:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


McCain At Saddleback

While it's good to see that McCain did well in his interview, it's interesting that no one here is pointing out that when he was supposed to be in a "cone of silence" to ensure that neither speaker had an unfair advantage, McCain was in his motorcade, and able to listen to both the questions and Obama's answers in advance. Maybe he listened, maybe not, but given the gaffes he's been making all summer when asked questions on the fly, he seemed remarkably prepared for the specific questions he got, which were the same as Obama's.

I'm disappointed that Obama turned down the offer for a summer-long series of Town-Hall debates, and am looking forward to seeing how the candidates do when they finally debate head-to-head this Fall. That will say a lot more about these men than the infomercials we call conventions. -DinsdaleP 11:08, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Here is a quote from Chuck Colson's book "Loving God," which was published in 1983:

"Like other prisoners, Solzhenitsyn worked in the fields, his days a pattern of backbreaking labor and slow starvation.

One day the hopelessness became too much to bear. Solzhenitsyn felt no purpose in fighting on; his life would make no ultimate difference. Laying his shovel down, he walked slowly to a crude work-site bench. He knew at any moment a guard would order him up and when he failed to respond, bludgeon him to death, probably with his own shovel. He'd seen it happen many times.

As he sat waiting, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he lifted his eyes. Next to him sat an old man with a wrinkled, utterly expressionless face. Hunched over, the man drew a stick through the sand at Solzhenitsyn's feet, deliberately tracing out the sign of the cross.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at that rough outline, his entire perspective shifted. He knew he was merely one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet in that moment, he also knew that the hope of all mankind was represented by that simple cross -- and through its power, anything was possible. Solhenitsyn slowly got up, picked up his shovel and went back to work."

Colson said in his notes to the book: "The story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the old man who made the sign of the cross was first told by Solzhenitsyn to a group of Christian leaders and later recounted by Billy Graham in his New Year's telecast, 1977. It has been retold subsequently, most publicly by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC)."

McCain is a big fan of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--as are millions of freedom-loving Christians, and rightly so--and has written about him. So....does the story told by Colson sound familiar? It's an inspirational story no matter what prisoner experienced it. Apparently McCain didn't start telling it until his 1999 book, and McCain's story has changed form and emphasis over the years. As modern-day parables often do.--Leansleft 14:18, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly article

Can the article on Andrew Schlafly be added to Category:Lawyers, Category:Engineers, and Category:Conservatives -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 16:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools