Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,598
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 131:
Line 131: − − == statement by John Calvert == − − ''The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry.'' (see [[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]) − − This is of course as wrong as the statement: − − ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.'' − − In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that ''atheism'' has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment. (See [http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20051097419F3d678_11025.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005)]) − − Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source! − − To make it as clear as possible: '''The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school''', though this is implied by John Calvert. − − Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please? − − Thanks, − [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT) − ::Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to [[User:Aschlafly|a Harvard Law School alumni]]. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT) − − :An [[appeal to authority]]? − :Could you please explain how the statement ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.'' is not deceptive? − :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:53, 7 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::I reread the quote. Calvert's website has an email address. It shouldn't be hard to get him to slightly alter the quote to provide some additional clarification although technically the sentence is not incorrect. I did provide some previous footnotes to Calvert in that section, which if memory serves, clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:55, 7 August 2011 (EDT) − ::''technically the sentence is not incorrect'': that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. You have to ask yourself whether a typical reader (i.e., a high-school student) will interpret this sentence correctly. I dare to say that a significant number will get the impression that the court decided that atheism cannot be promoted by a public school. − ::Good luck with getting a less misleading quote from John Calvert. Until then, the least you should do is to add a clarification! − ::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:56, 8 August 2011 (EDT) − :::::Quote has been changed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − − :::That is very strange: Which sentence was ''really'' written by John Calvert? ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.'' or ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.'' − :::Or did he write both statement on different occasions? − :::You are citing a secondary source - that is something which should be avoided. But this secondary source ''' is a blog'''. And it doesn't state where the quote comes from, but seemingly feels free to alter it, as you linked it for '''both'' versions. That doesn't sound trustworthy to me. − :::So, either you find a reliable source for John Calvert's statement, or you shouldn't use it at all. − :::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:11, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::::Given that [[Shockofgod]] is such a big thorn in the side of internet atheist and has won over 50 debates with atheists, a quote from his blog certainly suffices. Why just recently an atheist dentist converted to Christianity after [[Shockofgod]] co-labored with God. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6xhKQT4XCc VIDEO] At the same time, I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website also. There is certainly no hurry though as the shockofgod blog citation is more than sufficient. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − − ::::Given that his states the same quote in two versions without any explanation for the change, such a quote certainly '''doesn't suffice''' - notwithstanding all his other work. − ::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::::Two versions? Can you show me the other version on the internet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:51, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :::::In this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&direction=next&oldid=898225 revision] you state Shockofgod as a source for the first version of the quote. So, did you misquote Shockofgod? Or did Shockofgod had the first version, too? Both possibilities are disturbing. − :::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :::::::I feel bad that this is so disturbing to you. I hope you don't work yourself into a frenzy and have sleepless nights over this matter. I can tell you that I am not going to lose any sleep over this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::::You shouldn't feel bad for me. You should feel bad for the article. The above is proof that you are working sloppily and/or that you are using dubious sources. − ::::::Generally that isn't that problematic at a wiki, as such errors can be corrected by other editors. But this article is your chiefdom, and the usual mechanisms of quality control don't work. − ::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − − Conservative, you should really try to treat our little exchanges like a debate. Above you can see how you have lost just another argument: You made an error and you were found out. Which audience would judge favorably your reaction: ''I don't lose any sleep over this matter''? − [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :::RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community. For example, YouTube atheists have never produced a comprehensive video or series of videos on the current Conservapedia atheism article. Shane Killian's poorly done YouTube video on the Conservapedia atheism article was based on a much earlier version of the article and didn't discuss much of the article if memory serves. YouTube atheist and the Conservapedia atheism article: [http://eword10.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/deer_in_headlights1.gif Click HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::Why would a youtuber want to make a video on this atheism article when their medium is ''video''. They debate/rebut other youtubers. There is no reason to come to Conservapedia. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:56, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::::Max, for a non-atheist, you sure are interested in my activities relating to atheism at CP. Plus, I established you don't know your Bible and said something unbiblical. Are you sure you are not an atheist? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :::::::I find it extremely offensive that you'd question my Christianity. You, sir, are acting in a most unchristian manner with your taunts, jeers, name-calling and the added dishonest claims about no one answering your 15 questions. If I felt you were representative of the conservapedia community then I'd leave without regret however I find Andy, Karajou and RobSmith most pleasant to deal with. Also Iduan. NKeaton and others have been a pleasure to work with. Please do not question my faith in Christ again. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:36, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::::::::I don't understand what you are getting at but I have given my life to Christ. You sir, are insulting and rude. How dare you question my faith. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − If you don't understand the Ephesians verses Read this: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html Look at some commentaries on the Ephesians verses: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :I don't need your help to be a Christian. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:30, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − ::::All statements must be true and verifiable. There is no record on the internet that Calvert ever made a deceptive statement. Show me it. Changed heading accordingly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT) − :::::Then how about your statements that the 15 questions have not been answered? That is not true because they have been answered! Whether or not the answers are correct or not is another issue. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
no edit summary
::Thanks for the feedback. I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the feedback. I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks. It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks. It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)