Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Truth is not always popular)
(The Truth is not always popular)
Line 1,032: Line 1,032:
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm.  Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se.  You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that.  You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship.  We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post.  You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip.  So yes you are calling him a liberal.  If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.   
Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that.  You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship.  We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post.  You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip.  So yes you are calling him a liberal.  If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.   

Revision as of 22:34, 25 November 2008

This is a controversial topic. Please try HARD not to make any edits which you think MIGHT be reverted. Contributors can help each other to keep this page unprotected by discussing changes instead of making hasty changes. New users are advised to head to less contentious areas.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5


Lenin Poster

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--Aschlafly 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also revealed his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Obama and beer

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. [1] [2] No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. Thecount 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--Aschlafly 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)
And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. anonymous123 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)
He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. Human 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Hussein reference

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--Aschlafly 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--Aschlafly 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in Conservapedia:Debate Topics. --Ed Poor Talk 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an individual, not a group of people. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--Aschlafly 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I said five of the senior administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--Aschlafly 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)
"...it obviously is relevant...": Because you say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
"We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
" We provide the information and let the reader decide.": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
"We're not going to censor this factual information.": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
Philip J. Rayment 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is not to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. RodWeathers 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. EternalCritic 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --Brendanw 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. Bugler 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "Muslim" is someone who is "submissive" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the Islamic civilization.

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --Ed Poor Talk 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

"Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?: It's nonsense to suggest that that is all "being a Muslim" entails.
"It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, if it is wrong?
Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is me who has being trying to remove that claim, and Andy who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at me? I am not claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view is true. Why the double standard?
"...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--Aschlafly 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Debate On Obama's Religion

The debate is continuing at Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎ It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. NormanS 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-Vcelloho 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)


  1. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
  2. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-Vcelloho 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue.

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. conservative 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--Aschlafly 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?
We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --Ed Poor Talk 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it was a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
Philip J. Rayment 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --JeanJacques 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's not adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces and remarries commits adultery, not that someone who divorces commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Obama spiruality interview

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --Vmember 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. Bugler 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
  • um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--Vmember 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. Bugler 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
    • Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--Vmember 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)


Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--Aschlafly 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.
You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? HelpJazz 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.
The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--Aschlafly 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). HelpJazz 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--Aschlafly 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'll try my best. HelpJazz 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --Brendanw 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Fun poster [1] --Brendanw 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --Brendanw 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)


Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness. Thanks, --Chris

Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" Mike770781 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Disgusted Conservative too

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--Rpond

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --Chris

The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--Aschlafly 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)
It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --Brendanw 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. RodWeathers 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --Brendanw 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--Aschlafly 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --Brendanw 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--TruthOfChrist 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
"Liberal" is an ad hominem, for two reasons:
  • "ad hominem" refers to an argument about the person rather than about the issue. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the person rather than the issue.
  • An abusive ad hominem is when you say something nasty about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an abusive ad hominem. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
Philip J. Rayment 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Cool it

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --Ed Poor Talk 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Did you read that reference?

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Sliming Obama, January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --Brendanw 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -Mike770781 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Code name

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--Aschlafly 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)

My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. HelpJazz 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)
"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--Aschlafly 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)
These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim." -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to this source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! HelpJazz 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Everybody wins! Yay! -CSGuy 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

For the love of God!!

HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. Nig89 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--Aschlafly 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesZ (talk)

Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--Aschlafly 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)
The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. anonymous123 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim?

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.conservative 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--Aschlafly 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the slothful inductive fallacy and fallacy of exclusion whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[2] Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.

Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[3]

I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions:

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[4][5][6] Accordingly, How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[7] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied? If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. conservative 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I thought the two of you might enjoy reading this 2004 interview with Obama, where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --Hsmom 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama says - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he is and what he will do. Bugler 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
If what he says has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he said (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. conservative 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. Bugler 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're not a parodist? Riiiiiiight. MarkB 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? Bugler 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. MarkB 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim and the lack of evidence to support it plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. conservative 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. What prize? Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. Bugler 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, Hail Mary pass. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[8] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. conservative 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--Aschlafly 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)

What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
An interesting question is why people try so hard to deny it to themselves when the evidence is so clearly there. RodWeathers 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [9] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[10] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[11] conservative 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.
In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--Aschlafly 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
No, Andy, it is you who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[12] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. conservative 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.
Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--Aschlafly 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. conservative 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read this article.

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. conservative 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--Aschlafly 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( read this article. ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. conservative 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow religious freedom for Christians and Jews. Are Turkey and Indonesia good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is no religious test for office, and he can't be impeached for it. --Ed Poor Talk 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Another case for Obama being Muslim

During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--Jpatt 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. conservative 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

“Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error?

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. MylesP 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.
Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that every lottery has a winner.
The problem with Obama's religion is not so much Which is it? but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?
A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"
I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --Ed Poor Talk 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery does have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any given individual. The issue here is about a given individual, Barack Obama.
I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
Philip J. Rayment 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--TruthOfChrist 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)
In Dante's Inferno, I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--CPalmer 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)
MylesP, have you been reading Bad Science?

Awesome article

Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! happymoon

Great comedy article

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. Somebody21 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--WHurst

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here. AuthorNeubius 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

This will be a hit on stormfront

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. JCharlton 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. Patriot1505 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. AuthorNeubius, 19 November 2008


Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--Aschlafly 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-AuthorNeubius, 19 November 2008

It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. EternalCritic 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.
Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--Aschlafly 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)
When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. Aziraphale 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) <-like me, for example...

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. Somebody21 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because you are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"What's it to someone who ... is a Christian": As a Christian, my concern is for the truth. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.": No, Andy, it is spurious, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how you adamantly insist that he is a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have not done is actually address the issue.

Philip J. Rayment 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. Bugler 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --Europeo 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. Murray 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.

Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([13] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

Four Questions

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

  • 1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
  • 2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
  • 3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
  • 4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.

Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?

If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):

Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.

With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?

After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.

How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.

If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).

Alinsky Returns?

As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).

From the Trojan Candidate:

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.

If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.

If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .

Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.

Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [14]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TK (talk)

Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim?

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? conservative 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)

In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. Bugler 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. Learn together 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. conservative 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X is 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. Bugler 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Admitting that 20% is possible means that you've destroyed your argument that it is more than 50%.
And no, the whole point is not to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
Philip J. Rayment 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Admitting that 20% is possible means that you've destroyed your argument that it is more than 50%. You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. Bugler 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's not the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to oppose the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to support the claim that he is a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with Barack Obama as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --Ed Poor Talk 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. Bugler 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
They are not "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--Aschlafly 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is not censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained why the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.
Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about "his Muslim faith", but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.
It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --Ed Poor Talk 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.
Someone is missing the the point about my Muslim faith, which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--Aschlafly 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith"

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-KiraN 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Towards stability via discussion

unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see Editing etiquette).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --Ed Poor Talk 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Tim, that's simply not true. The 90/10 rule guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--Aschlafly 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
The 90/10 rule might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. RobNewberry 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--Aschlafly 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
This site has survived for two years only by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-KiraN 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)
@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a rule, it's just an excuse to make people you don't agree with go away. RobNewberry 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--Aschlafly 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-KiraN 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --₮K/Talk 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. Ajkgordon 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. RobNewberry 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from certain groups, to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".
RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----₮K/Talk 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)
RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The 90/10 rule applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--Aschlafly 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-KiraN 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's violent and intimidating gang activity.
My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. Ajkgordon 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that we believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. FredX 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--Aschlafly 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-KiraN 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my knowing he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --₮K/Talk 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is not dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? FredX 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, receive a 90/10 ban while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. Aggrieved 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Talking with enemies

In the section "statements" Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly did talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. JHanson 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.
Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your all or nothing analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only felt it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is liberal dogma, not CP editorial policy. --Ed Poor Talk 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
You misunderstand completely. I didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.
What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with Stalin, not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.
Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the article implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, not that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.JHanson 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? JHanson 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

compared to wikipedia article

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with this edit. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. BigMike 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good points, BigMike! --₮K/Talk 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. BigMike 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Suggestion for compromise

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice earlier on this talk page where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence against Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? HelpJazz 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-KiraN 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) HelpJazz 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. Sideways 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. ArnoldFriend 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--Ieuan 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--Aschlafly 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--Aschlafly 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"as required. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source please look here. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--Ieuan 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best a deist, at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--Ieuan 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
As above, 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."' Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--Ieuan 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
And again, "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."--Ieuan 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ever dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--Ieuan 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
More. Washington Post, but hey, I'm not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies, I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--Ieuan 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--Ieuan 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of liberal deceit, Atheist deceit. --₮K/Talk 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)

You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--Ieuan 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Accusations of Homosexuality

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers[1]. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair[2] was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting[3] that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.

I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--AlexC 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently his extremely liberal voting record as a Senator?[15] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the Obama/infantcide issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Consequences of the current state of the article

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia Bill Clinton article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. conservative 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

First Black President?

Should we have an article on the First Black President? I had created one, but Ed said we should talk about it here first.

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [16], [17], and [18]. BHarlan 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

  • I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --₮K/Talk 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--Aschlafly 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? TTerm 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--Aschlafly 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. TTerm 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Great. Would you mind undeleting First Black president, if the software allows it? BHarlan 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Done, without yet reading it.--Aschlafly 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --Brendanw 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

How to collaborate

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by User:Aschlafly. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --Ed Poor Talk 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --₮K/Talk 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
  1. DanH - a strong editor and respected sysop - quit this project in disgust at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
  2. PJR - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - categorically refutes the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
  3. Conservative - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains wholly unconvinced of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could damage Conservapedia's credibility.
  4. Tim/CPAdmin1 - one of the original members of this project - has repeatedly objected to its inclusion.
  5. And finally, ChrisS - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. [19]
What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such demonstrably principled opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that this is plain wrong and must be removed.
Good night (and good luck). --JohnZ 17:39, 18 November
And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)
We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--Aschlafly 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, it is your view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the majority. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make your minority and illogical view prevail.
And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [20] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our Founding Fathers indicated) simply not trustworthy. --Ed Poor Talk 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Hi Ed,
I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, Aziraphale 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) <-honh honh...
Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--Aschlafly 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --Ed Poor Talk 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

And what do you see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --JohnZ 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. Aziraphale 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) <- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...

Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--Aschlafly 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? FredX 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about the real horse whisperer. I have no more time to entertain you here. --Ed Poor Talk 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. Anybody who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and have it stick. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.
That is the source of wasted time here. Aziraphale 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk.Special:Contributions/Aziraphale--Aschlafly 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --WOwen 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

You're All Missing the Point

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.


Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

  • Abortion
  • Stem cell research
  • War on Terror
  • Criminal rights
  • Lack of substance in policy
  • Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are trying to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. NormanS 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. conservative 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.AuthorNeubius, 19 November 2008


All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--Aschlafly 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. FredX 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
As FredX says, they are not supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--Aschlafly 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both factual and relevant. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite factual, but it would not be relevant. Agreed?
So when you say that I should not delete factual information, as long as it is relevant, I agree.
The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is not factual. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", you are avoiding the point that it is not factual. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is not factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual is not a valid argument, because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is factual. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. AuthorNeubius, 19 November 2008


It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

Conservamike 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--AlexC 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Counter Evidence

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. NormanS 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--Aschlafly 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--AlexC 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--TruthOfChrist 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

My innocuous talk page contribution removed?

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--TruthOfChrist 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --TruthOfChrist 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

About the Muslim allegations

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. BigMike 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--Aschlafly 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. BigMike 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)
OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--Aschlafly 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. BigMike 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a template would help

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but please check the talk page carefully to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--CPalmer 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

  • We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --₮K/Talk 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--CPalmer 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --₮K/Talk 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. Philip J. Rayment 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Captured the White House"

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

-- Ferret Nice old chat 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--Aschlafly 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)
It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. Aggrieved 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Religious Affiliation

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

-- Ferret Nice old chat 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.
By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--Aschlafly 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that Cybercast News Service which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. conservative 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Another shocked conservative here

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. MrCoulter

The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--Frey 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)
  • The election officially lost its validity for many, with the fraud committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [21] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continueddeceit in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --₮K/Talk 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? RodWeathers 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You can read more about this here. --₮K/Talk 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

The Truth is not always popular

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. Patriot1505 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he is a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. RodWeathers 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--Frey 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.Patriot1505 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --Brendanw 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly claimed that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce any strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. Philip J. Rayment 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)
No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.
At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--Aschlafly 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have not shown them to be facts. Philip J. Rayment 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for You have not shown them to be facts, well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you prove them to be false? And please, manners makyth man. Bugler 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article in direct opposition to many other reputable editors is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are not opinion, but testable.
"The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been deemed sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been demonstrated to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the personal opinion of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it Conservapedia, not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to logic and evidence and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't decide (as distinct from determine) the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
"The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.: The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
In summary, the arguments have been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually showing (as distinct from asserting) that the information is both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they are correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
Philip J. Rayment 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ad nauseam. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. Bugler 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)
"Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
"You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
"This is both arrogant and wrong.": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
"You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
"Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
"Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
"And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That is saying 'x is a fact'.
"You have not answered it...": I have, a number of times.
"...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not opinions. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
"Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.": Incorrect.
"We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...": These are truth claims, not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
"Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
"We are not dogmatic.": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence is being dogmatic.
"...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.": Essentially you are.
"But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.": Oh, so the dogmatism (that you are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
" You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.": Where exactly did I say that?
"But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
"The question has been debated ad nauseam.": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being against Obama being a Muslim.
" And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...": Ignoring Commandment 1?
In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it is your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. - Rod Weathers 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any argument for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported claim that they are correct. So no, unsupported opinions are not worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
Philip J. Rayment 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do not have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are not universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach your conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is not conjecture and it is not POV. It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. - Rod Weathers 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is not logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed your comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I specifically said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he is a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet still do nothing to substantiate that!
Philip J. Rayment 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. Liberals inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--Aschlafly 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)
"But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
"Liberals inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
"You say you're not a liberal...": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about my beliefs rather than the issue at hand is an ad hominem argument—a logically invalid argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.
Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--Aschlafly 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you are calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Philip, see point 55 in liberal style about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.
You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for gun control here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--Aschlafly 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--JZim 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? HenryS 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)
No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --₮K/Talk 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. - Rod Weathers 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? HenryS 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?- Rod Weathers 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.LowKey
Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? HenryS 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the correct way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.LowKey 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of liberal deceit that personal privacy is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, liberals seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --₮K/Talk 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I believe Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. LowKey 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)
"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents." is #3 on the list of Liberal logic When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: "Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding." This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of Liberal Deceit. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --₮K/Talk 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and asks for reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is not calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it is the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes less sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be intelligent and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. LowKey 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

"Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.": Whose authority does Andy submit to? Philip J. Rayment 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)
  • Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. Here, he submits to no one. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, "As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority." you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your liberal opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --₮K/Talk 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least. AuthorNeubius November 18 2008

The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--Aschlafly 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. - Rod Weathers 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)
  • To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --₮K/Talk 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)
To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. Murray 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Mr.Schlafly, take heart!

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial Liberal based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil Liberalism. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the Liberal based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These Liberals, who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! MarkBaley 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--JZim 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--Aschlafly 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--JZim 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)


You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. Ottotanaka 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. Ottotanaka 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--Frey 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)


I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks JANorton 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--Aschlafly 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. RodWeathers 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. JANorton 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --Brendanw 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Truth is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to hide this information under the name of 'consistency' will not do. RodWeathers 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--Aschlafly 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the opposite order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. RodWeathers 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it. AuthorNeubius 16:31, 23 November 2008

That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--Aschlafly 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this. AuthorNeubius 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind always needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. RodWeathers 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --Brendanw 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)


Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? JY23 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe when he actually becomes the president. Patriot1505 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --Brendanw 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. Patriot1505 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --Brendanw 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.Patriot1505 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Muslim/Rev. Wright

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .ChristianBlade1 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

This has already been discussed ad nauseam, and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--CPalmer 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. - Rod Weathers 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record. - CBrown 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--CPalmer 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --Ed Poor Talk 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule (Commandment 7), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least one quality edit for each nine talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who didn't break the rule? Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)
You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--CPalmer 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. - Rod Weathers 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. - CBrown 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --Ed Poor Talk 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Talk page edits

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--JZim 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)

There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. - Rod Weathers 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Rod, please define censorship.--JZim 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. HenryS 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --Ed Poor Talk 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Personal remarks

I dislike reading remarks like the following:

  • I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
  • Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
  • unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
  • way to do it is to retract and apologise
  • you accused me
  • you are calling him a liberal
  • You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. Thank you. --Ed Poor Talk 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence at least), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.LowKey 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --Ed Poor Talk 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list that as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. about the person) and a derogatory remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something personal, especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
"And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
How is Andy speculating about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
How about you apply those standards more consistently?
Philip J. Rayment 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Obama as a Muslim

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

  • Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]

This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

  • Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]

Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

  • Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]

This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from my Muslim faith.

  • On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]

I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

  • Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.

Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

  • Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]

I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

  • Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]

This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--Conservativecarl 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)
  1. http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html
  2. http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf
  3. http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html