96
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)
::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This article needs to be cleaned up
----
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Changed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
----
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Political Parties ==
The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Background ==
After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)
:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===
I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
===Good Evenning RobS===
Thank you for taking the time to review this.
As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.
However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.
I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.
Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?
Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.
I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)
=== Earlier history ===
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Hello RobS & CPAdmin===
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This article needs to be cleaned up
----
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Changed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
----
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Political Parties ==
The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Background ==
After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)
:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===
I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
===Good Evenning RobS===
Thank you for taking the time to review this.
As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.
However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.
I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.
Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?
Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.
I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)
=== Earlier history ===
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Hello RobS & CPAdmin===
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)