Talk:Main Page/archive34

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Novak Response/ Huck second in Florida

Here is a video of Huckabee's response to Novak's claim (its in the middle of the interview).[1] It seems Novak has forgotten about all of us social conservatives (or value voters) and believes the new conservative party most be neoconservative in order to win.

When governor, Huckabee cut welfare rolls in his state in half and had the largest tax cut in state history. These attacks never attack the results in Arkansas during Huckabee's tenure, they just attack tax increases (most of which were mandated by the Arkansas Supreme Court or the people themselves). Arkansas had better schools (previously had one of the poorest grading school systems), better highways (used to have the worst highways in America), passed on a large state surplus, passed a state marriage amendment (in a hugely democratic state), passed a state life amendment, cut taxes over 94 times, and cut state welfare while Huckabee was governor. I guess Novak wouldn't have called Reagan a conservative either since Reagan raised taxes in California by 1 billion during his governorship. Neoconservative generalities are not going to work against Huck.

By the way, a new poll released today shows Huckabee second in Florida at 17%.[2] Which is pretty significant seeing that he did not even register in the same poll last month. --Tash 15:50, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Good points. I'll pass them along, and I encourage further discussion here.--Aschlafly 16:05, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Muslims rioting in France

I find this story to be interesting, especially given the wide path that the media will tread to avoid using the word Muslim. I also recall that in the last round of rioting back in 2005, that of the scores of people arrested, French courts threw them all out except for 1 person who saw jail time. It's pretty much let them do whatever they want to do over in France and blame the government for oppressing them and forcing them to set cars on fire. Learn together 19:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the insight, but where is the link to the story? Perhaps it is worth the Main page.--Aschlafly 10:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Here are 3 articles on the riots from different sources. They mentioned "Arabs" and "blacks" as well as "immigrants", but refuse to apply the one classification that covers them, "Muslim".
By the way, there is also a mention in 2 of the articles that the 138 cars burned in France on the 3rd day is about normal for the number of cars expected to be burned in France each night -- I am VERY glad I live in America! Learn together 16:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Its because they arn't all muslim..... Admittedly most are but also many arnt, they are not protesting because they are muslim either, that has nothing to do with it. When christian miners go on strike is that striking miners or striking christians? These people are rioting because they are living in squallor every day, with a government that doesnt help them and a mainstream society that treats them with prejudice and disrespect. So to classify them as muslims rioting just sends out a negative message and really is not true. (Scarecrow), im not really sure how to add to this properly? so i just edited

Type four tildes (~~~~), or use the signature button on the editing toolbar. It converts to your username and date and time. Philip J. Rayment 08:15, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Dick Morris wrote a column yesterday entitled, "Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative", in which he refuted Novak's claim of Huckabee being a fiscal liberal. Here is a section of the article:

"A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a "47 percent increase in state tax burden." But during Huckabee's years in office, total state tax burden -- all 50 states combined -- rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005. In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.

Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn't need it any longer.He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)"[3]

--Tash 10:41, 28 November 2007 (EST)

"When governor, Huckabee cut welfare rolls in his state in half..." How did he do that? What social costs resulted from this policy move? PaulH 22:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Rejection of science

     ally rejects science? I'd say it's (1) liberals and (2) some fundamentalists.

Liberals routinely reject any scientific finding which contradicts their political ideology. Global warming is the biggest fraud, it's just a scam to get money from wealthy democratic countries into the coffers of third world dictators. Evolution is sheer pseudoscience; there's no way to "falsify" it.

On the other hand, we conservatives have a problem with science sometimes. The Creation Science of young earth creationists is the example that stands out.

I think the way Conservapedia should address this is simply to report what the science says, and contrast it with any contradictory statements by advocates and partisans. But actually, it's not that simple. No partisan worth his salt would ever concede that he was "anti-science". I don't really see a solution here. --Ed Poor Talk 16:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, there would be some very simple ways to falsify evolution. You could show for example that genes aren't the cause of phenotypic traits. Or you could show that every member of a species gets to reproduce equally regardless of traits. Or you could show that mutations and copying errors do not occur. If any one of these things were true, then evolution would be falsified, so therefore it is falsifiable. SSchultz 20:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Ed, we creationists have no problem with science: we essentially invented it. We have a problem with ideological ideas being passed off as science.
SSchultz, your examples of falsifying evolution are wrong. You don't falsify an explanation of observations by proving the observations to be wrong.
  • Genes being the cause of phenotypic traits are an observation, whilst both creation and evolution are explanations of how the genes came to be. Indicating that one can't falsify the observation does not mean that the explanation is valid.
  • Mutations and copying errors are an observation, but both creation and evolution can explain these observations, so again it cannot be a falsification of evolution.
  • Unequal reproduction of species is also an observation, so the same applies, although in this case I expect that evolution, being the flexible story it is, could probably accommodate a fair amount of equal reproduction anyway.
See Falsifiability of Evolution for more on this.
Philip J. Rayment 00:49, 29 November 2007 (EST)


Here's a nice permalink to use on the front page article about conservapedia's alexa traffic rank:

I've added some other sites of interest. HermanH 08:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, Rush is once again ahead of us-- it's hard to beat talent on loan from God!

Rush conserv.png

--Ben Talk 10:19, 29 November 2007 (EST)

No, I don't think so, about either of your points! Your graph is not page views, Ben.--Aschlafly 10:25, 29 November 2007 (EST)

"Should CNN be Allowed to Host Any More Debates?"

Surely, the author of this headline is not asking for the state to control the media and decide what CNN is "allowed" to do? If the candidates have a problem with CNN, they won't show, and CNN's debates will lose credibility.PaulH 16:38, 29 November 2007 (EST)

"Cross-dressing day"

The article linked quotes the principal saying that the cross-dressing spirit day was not mandatory. Shouldn't the blurb on the main page reflect this? TigersRoar 20:41, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Not when a parent specifically stated otherwise. I quote:
There was a situation that took place, which was the gender bender day. Our children were to participate in the cross-dressing. When they refused they were told they would get a bad grade...
--TerryHTalk 20:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

New Article of the Month needed

just in case no one noticed it's December now...--Tash 21:52, 2 December 2007 (EST)

I'd suggest the article United Kingdom. It is one of the most view articles on this site that doesn't deal with homosexuality, or was covered by any of the previous articles of the month. Order 00:50, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Breaking News

Slight mistake - the second link in the newest breaking news article ("Hillary is plummeting!") currently links to the source of the previous breaking news article, this. I'm unsure as to what the correct link should be. Feebasfactor 23:18, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Great catch! Fixed it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:30, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Chimps smarter than university students

Seams that even chimps have better memory than the liberal university students. [4]

The article doesn't 'seam' to say anything about the political views of the college everyone who's getting a higher education a liberal? Maestro 20:31, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Not only that, but the study was conducted in Japan.--OrwellFan 21:04, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe the headline should read "Chimps Smarter than Japanese University Students!" But that would be racism, wouldn't it? Claude 21:14, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Universities, and their students, are overwhelmingly liberal. Surely no one disputes that.--Aschlafly 21:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)

1. Even in Japan? 2. If true, what does that say about the relationship between liberal thinking and intelligent and well-educated people? Is there some sort of statistical breakdown and analysis of this phenomenon? Claude 21:23, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Andy I disagree with that - and if you disagree with me than feel free to look towards the likes of Liberty U, Bob Jones U, or any of the hundreds of conservative universities out there. Suggesting that the apes could merely remember more than liberals is a misrepresentation and distortion of the actual project - and what is listed on the main page is merely some ignoble and venomous attack based off a huge generalization. I'll agree with you that most universities in the U.S. are liberal - though even then, as I've said not all are, but for you to attempt to try and stretch that generalization to Japan just so that the main page can have some smart-alec comment is ridiculous.--IDuan21:31, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Does anybody have any information on the politicization of colleges in Japan? The culture is different there, with stronger cultural deterrents to crime and rebellion. DanH 21:39, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Unless the researcher actually measured the political orientation, we can say very little about the political orientation of these Japanese university students. If the researchers have figures on the ability to perform the memory tasks depending on the political orientation, then you could mention it, but you should cite relevant sources. The current paper didn't say if liberal students did better or worse than conservative students, maybe because they didn't research it. Order 01:45, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Ultimately, it is still a very basic fact that the article you link has nothing to do with the labeling you give it on the front page. Of course, since, by Conservapedia policy, only liberals, sorry, I forgot that it must always be capitalized on this site, Liberals are capable of deceit, this must be an example of Conservative Truthfulness, a concept as bizarre, as used on this site, as the Conservapedia's definition of Liberal Deceit. Boomcoach 10:35, 4 December 2007 (EST) (Corrected spelling)Boomcoach 15:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The labeling of the the article is outrageous. The article only mentions humans. Are you suggesting that only liberal college students can be considered humans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barondezabrus (talk)

Adlai Ewing Stevenson

I posted the following on the Adlai Ewing Stevenson talk page, and am still waiting for an administrative response:

According to this article, Adlai Stevenson was born in 1635 and lived until 1915. Fair enough - people lived a healthier lifestyle back then. He was also VP from 1693 to 1697, some 80 or so years before there was a country to be VP of. Quite the feat. I was also unaware that there was a "Muslim County" in Kentucky. I'll have to visit. Since this article was last edited some six months ago, I assume the administrators of the site are aware of all this and agree with the veracity of the content.

If you put the phrases "Muslim County," and "Kentucky" in a Google search, it's the number one article on Google, so at least some good comes of this...

Claude 21:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)

I see that DanH has taken care of it. It seems as if none of the administrators had that article on their watch list to notice your comment. Philip J. Rayment 03:14, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Breaking news

Hostage taking in progress at Hillary's New Hampshire Campaign office. Three out of the possible four hostages have been released. Nearby campaign headquarters for Obama and Edwards have been evacuated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielKotra (talk) and JohnGalt (talk)

Doesn't seem to be any educational value or political significance to this story, so I'll pass on it. The fact that is one of Hillary Clinton's offices at the center of the story is meaningless. Apparently a crazy man was simply seeking attention.--Aschlafly 17:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Oddly enough, tt will probably boost her poll numbers. In the minds of the simple it will be almost as if she herself was personally in there rescuing them. Learn together 18:20, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Regarding Evolution

Come on, guys, give the darwinists a break. Just because the empirical evidence tells us that dinos did not live millions of years ago, it doesn't mean they did't. - Mats

I think that's a good example of blind faith. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Hi guys, just bobbing in to note that a lot of atheists aren't depressed or anything. I'm an atheist, and admittedly quite young, however my parents and grandparents are all atheists and they are all very happy people who have a lot of friends and loving families. In fact almost all of my extended family is atheistic, and we are a very happy family. About love though Aschlafly, it is an mixture of chemicals and hormones that create that paternal/maternal feeling (in the case of parents) or the love between husband and wife. When you say 'few are going to agree with you" that is not an argument, argument by numbers is not logical or correct, remember if you go back 5000 years the vast majority of people did not even know that the jewish/christian god "existed" (I use inverted commas so that you don't get the false idea that I think he exists), so does that mean that he didn't exist back then? Well I think so, but obviously you won't.
UFO's? Sorry, treat them how I treat God: "Evidence? None?? What and you expect me to think they exist?" Dark matter? Well when its observed that 23% of the matter in the universe is 'missing' then obviously someone will come up with a theory to explain it. I read an interesting article in the NewScientist recently that had several explanations for this that do not require dark matter. Science always updates it's theories until they come up with one that only needs minor modifications to make it work: Gravity, electro-magnetic force, etc. Bolly 8:50, 6 December 2007
There's lots of evidence for God (even if you don't consider that it constitutes "proof"). Although there is some evidence for UFOs as well, but definitely not conclusive, in my opinion. I think it's incorrect to say that "its observed that 23% of the matter in the universe is 'missing'". Rather, the Big Bang predicts more matter than is observed, so they have to propose "dark matter" in order to salvage the story. Scientists do revise their theories, but they are also influenced by the worldview, and many a priori exclude God as an explanation, so no matter how much revising they do, they will never come up with the correct explanation if God is the correct explanation. That's being close-minded. Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Well, Bolly, perhaps you're like a smoker who lives into his 80s, or like an alcoholic who never suffers the health affects of the addiction. There are people like that. A very small percentage. More often, there are people claiming not to be afflicted when they really are. The average person who spends decades in the absence of God ends up more depressed, more despondent, more likely to become insane, and more anxiety-ridden than someone living in faith.
Most atheists, while clinging to materialism, have very bizarre beliefs about things no one sees. You've denied a belief in UFOs, a big atheist passion. You've begged off on "dark matter," another bizarre belief in the unseen. How about explaining what guides the migration of butterflies over thousands of miles each year to the same town in California, or Mexico? Most atheists, clinging to their materialism, insist it must be ... magnetic detectors in the brains of the butterflies! How about you?--Aschlafly 17:42, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Look, UFO's are not commonly believed by atheists, to the best of my knowledge. Yes I would admit that it is likely that the majority of people who believe in UFO's are atheists or agnostics however that does not mean that the majority of atheists believe in UFO's, quite the opposite really. Dark Matter is different, it is simply a theory, with little supporting evidence. It is simply the one that work(ed/s) the best at the time. Now perhaps there is a better one with more evidence. The great thing about science is it continually repeats until a consensus is reached, and when new evidence emerges it is changed again. The butterflies? I have no knowledge of these butterflies so I cannot comment on them. I have heard evidence that homing pigeons use a combination of landmarks and the magnetic field to navigate by, perhaps it is similar for these butterflies? But you would have to consult a specialist bioligist in this case. Bolly 10:14, 6 December 2007
I suspect that when Aschlafly mentioned UFOs, he was referring to extraterrestrial beings, whether they've visited Earth or not. Do you have an opinion on them? Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Bolly, UFOs, "dark matter", and magnetic compasses in the brains of birds and butterflies to guide highly precise migration are all commonly believed by atheists. And are unseen. You can play dumb all you want about butterfly migration, but all you have to do is pick up an encyclopedia (or read the entry here) and you will begin seeking an implausible materialistic explanation like other atheists.
Many atheists, as they grow old, either (i) open their minds and convert, as Anthony Flew did, (ii) fall into depression or despondency or worse, as in the case of Clark Adams [5], or (iii) go insane, as Nietzsche did. Living in denial of God may seem like fun when one is young, just as drinking or smoking might. But they lead to tragedy as the person gets older.--Aschlafly 19:25, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Well I disagree, I think you have formulated a slight prejudice against all atheists and are perhaps unwilling too realise that 'we' atheists are just as diverse, if not more so, then Christians. Surely it would be unfair of me to say that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible? We both know that many don't, just as many do not believe in the Bible at all, rather in a more private, or more deistic God. I believe that dark matter is a good theory, yet I freely admit that there is no good evidence for it, it simply fits the facts as we know them. I am not 'playing dumb', its true I did read your entry on them, and I while I can come up with several theories for how they navigate, pigeon style, using landmarks, following a scent or a trail of food that leads to that location. I have no other evidence to extrapolate on, however that does not mean that God is the answer. Consider that it was only recently thought that it was impossible for something as complex as the eye to evolve. Even if you do not believe in evolution, you surely agree that it is conceivable for an eye to evolve from almost nothing over the course of a billion years? Regardless of whether you think it happened or not.
Look, again we are just arguing using anecdotal evidence! Yes, in the USA it is quite possible that atheists are more depressed than christians because they are a repressed minority, however consider Australia and Britain where atheists make up a large portion of society. You would assume that therefore Australians and British would be on average more depressed then Americans, yet it is not the case because atheists are much more accepted, and it is no longer an issue there. Bolly 11:36, 6 December 2007
I do not believe in evolution, and I most certainly do not believe that it is possible for an eye to evolve over the course of any amount of time. Nature doesn't work that way; it can't create new complex things that didn't exist before. See here for more.
I part ways with what Aschlafly appears to be saying about butterflies; I'm quite happy to believe that they use magnets to navigate. God created creatures to be able to do lots of thing (e.g. fly, navigate) and also provided the means to achieve those things (wings, magnets). The problem is not how they do it, but how it came about in the first place. God designing and creating complex creatures is a rational explanation, while evolution designing and creating complex creatures is not. An evolution even once proposed a way of falsifying evolution, including that finding magnets in nature would falsify it. Yet we have.
Very few people in Australia would call themselves atheists, although a lot more people (proportionally) than America don't go to church. Nevertheless, the youth suicide rate in Australia is one of the highest in the world, so I think that your argument about Australians being no more depressed than Americans might be on thin ice.
Philip J. Rayment 21:12, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Now you're rambling, perhaps in hope that readers will forget the focused points I made. Yes, like most atheists you will strain for an implausible materialistic explanation for migration, to the point of insisting that butterflies have super-sensitive magnetic compasses in their tiny brains! Or you will simply change the subject, as you did. Surely you don't really believe that the materialistic answer to feed your belief is "landmarks" or "scent" or a "trail of food." Yet that view reflects the desperation of the materialistic atheist.
Maybe you can find and keep a spouse who agrees with the atheistic view that love is nothing more than some chemical reactions in the brain. I hope so, for your sake. Most people I know prefer to fall in love beyond imagined chemical reactions in the brain, which, by the way, are another unseen fantasy of materialists. As to only atheists in the U.S. becoming despondent, that's plainly not so: Nietzsche was a German atheist who went crazy.--Aschlafly 20:09, 5 December 2007 (EST)
I apologise if I appear to be rambling, that was not my intention. To say that I am straining is untrue, those ideas took me about 15 seconds to think up, without any prior knowledge. I think that a materialistic answer to a phenomenon (sorry if it's spelt wrong, I have trouble with that word) is far superior to an imagined, magical or faith based one. What is so implausable about the idea that the butterflies, forced south because of the cold, follow a path that allows them to feed? The end of that path is where that Mexican town is built, purely by coincidence. I'm not saying it's the right answer, but it is more plausible then saying that a butterfly 'knows' where it is going because of some supernatural sense. I hardly think it is desperation at all, there are plenty of cases where the materialistic answer was correct! Consider bats and echolocation, homing pigeons, elephants who can feel other elephants and large animals through the ground due to sensitive feet. Just because it is unknown how a butterfly can navigate, and just because you do not think that there is a normal reason for it, does not mean that it cannot navigate unaided by a supernatural entity.
I'm sure I can, it may surprise you that I had a long and happy relationship with a christian girl, who did not agree with my view on love, however we loved each other nevertheless. It is not necessary for someone to agree with me for me to love them or vice-versa. I recently was introduced to Nietzsche during a philosophy course that I undertook. I think he is a fascinating man, and his philosophies have many points to recommend them. Yes he went insane. I fail to see your point, it was not because he was an athiest that he went insane. I will undertake some research on him tomorrow, I have little time till then, however I would not be surprised if it was more to do with his extreme way of living rather then his athiesm. Bolly 12:23, 6 December 2007
Smoking matters, drinking matters and ... ideas matter too. Yes, your materialistic theory of butterfly migration is preposterous and, yes, your strictly materialistic view of life is predisposed to depression (or worse) and insanity later in life. Maybe you can avoid those end points and be lucky like the lucky smokers and drinkers. But many aren't so lucky. I've given just 2 examples above who were not so lucky.
Did your relationship based on a materialistic love last? I wouldn't expect it to, and it doesn't sound like it did. Pure coincidence? No, because ideas do matter. At some point an atheist's partner is likely to wake up and realize that he or she is wasting her love on someone who doesn't even believe in real love. It's an avoidable tragedy ... for both.--Aschlafly 23:33, 5 December 2007 (EST)
If anything is ad hominem, then it is your comment that his partner was wasting her love on him. Order 00:22, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I for one am in a lifelong relationship with someone who also understands that "real love" is a completely humanistic - and ultimately materialistic phenomenon. We're happy, have been for years, and foresee being so for the rest of our lives. Although I do agree with you on one thing - ideas matter and can be dangerous. Chief among these in my region's history is that people around here were better off dead/taken from their families/having their culture exterminated than they were to continue living without believing in the idea that the only way to a meaningful existence was through the teachings of a man who was nailed to a piece of wood some 2000 years ago. An idea that had horrible implications for many in human history. Peace. Claude 23:43, 5 December 2007 (EST)

news story for main page?

Here's a story that is big news in my area: a man is going to court today to try to get "in god we trust" removed from money, and from the pledge of allegiance in schools Taj 14:41, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Taj, great catch! I spoke with Michael Newdow several years ago, and filed a legal brief against his argument in his first case against the Pledge. I'll put this on the front page now! Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:02, 4 December 2007 (EST)

As a practicing Christian I have to say I agree with his campaign. The US is not a theocracy. The pledge was needlessly (and unwisely) amended in 1954, adding "under God". It is not the role of the state to place a religon, even if followed by a majority, above others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawman (talk)

Why would the U.S. have to be a theocracy to recognise God? And if a state refuses to mention God, favourably at least, then it has effectively imposed the religion of Secular Humanism on the people, which in the case of the U.S., would almost certainly go against the majority. Your argument seems to presuppose that Christianity is merely a subjective belief, like a "God virus", that one can avoid or catch, rather that a fact of reality. Philip J. Rayment 07:58, 5 December 2007 (EST)
I'm interested in learning more about the religion of Secular Humanism. Which codified beliefs,rituals and practices do Secular Humanists adherence to? What are their ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology? Where do they study them? What encompasses their personal faith and mystic experience? Where do they congregate to worship? GavinSproat 09:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)
What makes you think that it must have all those things? "Religion" (see that article) has wider use than just things that have rituals, etc. Philip J. Rayment 09:56, 5 December 2007 (EST)
My argument is that the Pledge of Allegiance binds loyalty to the republic with loyalty to God, and that this is unnecessary. The main message of the pledge is to promote unity. The pledge is for citizens standing in unity and loyalty ("One nation"), but the addition of "under God" makes the pledge exclusive. I don't think that removal of "under God" could be seen as a blow to Christians or as a promotion of atheism.
But if governments govern under the authority of God, then surely the pledge is simply recognising that fact. No, by itself it may not be a promotion of atheism, but the original comment that you were responding to was not about the pledge but about the coins, and this is all part of a systematic attempt to remove all acknowledgement of God. Even your comment about a theocracy (you didn't answer the question, by the way), suggests that. Removal of one bit may not be a problem, but removal of all acknowledgements is defacto promotion of atheistic religions. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)
OK, let's test your position. If I teach in a public school, can I lead my students in prayer to start the class (allowing anyone who objects to remain silent or leave)? Can I hang the Ten Commandments on the wall of my classroom? Often people pretend to be "neutral" towards faith in school, but usually a few simple questions can reveal that they are really censoring expressions of faith in school.--Aschlafly 09:49, 5 December 2007 (EST)
That depends if you are a history teacher and hang documents like the Constitution, the Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi then by all means hang the Ten Commandments. But if you are a Math or a Science teacher people may wonder if you purpose is to force the religion on your students. Also in many states like Virgina there is a state mandated moment of silence everyday during which you are welcome to pull out your bible and pray silently (and I know teachers who do this). The lawmakers who put this into place did not hid that the reason they did was to put pray back in school either Pibu 10:27, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Since when is praying or hanging the Ten Commandments "forcing" religion on students? This is a typical anti-Christian tactic of accusing people wanting to inform or educate people about God, or acknowledge God, of doing something reprehensible by "forcing" their view on others. Yet if that can be considered "forcing", then prohibiting it is forcing the view that it can't be done!
The second problem is in referring to the Ten Commandments are something "religious". Why not accept them as a historical document? Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 5 December 2007 (EST)
If you look at what I wrote as a whole I state that as a historical document in say a history class the Ten Commandments are good but in a Math or Science class where there is no connection to the subject matter you must ask if they are their to push a view point. An praying aloud in front of impressible children while in a position of authority over them (i.e. a teacher) also can easily be seen as pushing a point of view that neither they nor their parents may want Pubu 21:42, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, you did say that about the different classes, and I did read that, but overlooked it when I typed my response. I think that I agree that there is no particular reason to have the Ten Commandments displayed in maths or science classes.
"Pushing" a point of view does not sound as bad as "forcing" it, as you previously put. But if that can be seen as "pushing", then surely banning prayer could even more so be seen as forcing a viewpoint. Your argument also presumes that influencing (more accurate than "pushing") students favourably towards Christianity is something to be avoided, which is rather odd, given the enormous benefits that Christianity has brought to society.[6][7]
Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 6 December 2007 (EST)
After your prayers, all the other religions that students may follow can then have theirs? (allowing anyone who objects to remain silent or leave). That could take some time. How much time would be left for teaching. Sure, hang the Ten Commandments along with other religions' avowals that other students may follow, would there be room left for school stuff? Surely people can endulge their religion before they go to school, in their Churches, Mosques, Synagogs, Woody glades, Malls or wherever they choose to worship. Or go to a religious school? (opens the justifyable question o state financing). GavinSproat 10:05, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Why should all other religions follow? Are you working on the false premise that all religions are equal? Various religions/worldviews disagree, so they cannot all be right. And as some of their claims provide no middle ground, they cannot all be wrong. So treating them as equal is fallacious. Philip J. Rayment 21:22, 5 December 2007 (EST)
The problem is which is determining which of them is the correct one. Since all people how have faith in their religion (this include atheists) know that they are the correct one until there is hard evidence we have to treat all religions equal or we are oppressing someone for their religion. Pubu 21:42, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Why should that be a problem? We encounter problems like this all the time, and attempt to solve such problems with research, enquiries, court cases, or whatever. Faith is trust based on evidence. Christianity claims to be an evidence-based religion. It is in that sense quite testable. You can also test religions for logical consistency. In other words, there is already hard evidence; the problem is the atheistic rhetoric that Christianity is something divorced from reality and is therefore purely subjective and untestable. Besides, we are not treating all religions as equal; atheistic religions have some of their views, such as evolution, taught in government schools. So much for treating them all equally! Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Folks, your answers expose the censorship. I'm the teacher, I want to lead the class in prayer. The Board of Education or school can fire me if they don't want me to be the teacher. But as long as I'm the teacher, this traditional speech favored by a majority of the parents should be allowed. The very definition of censorship is to allow a few people to silence others.--Aschlafly 10:32, 5 December 2007 (EST)
What about religions other than your own. Will their chosen representative be allowed to lead your class in prayer? GavinSproat 10:42, 5 December 2007 (EST)
That's up to the majority of the parents who fund and pay for the school. Guess what: that's how most issues are handled, except where censors try to impose atheism on the class.--Aschlafly 11:08, 5 December 2007 (EST)
If there are a minority of Muslims and Jews in the School and the majority of the parents decide no classroom prayers lead by their chosen representatives, then no classroom prayers for Muslims and Jews? GavinSproat 11:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)
That's a phony hypothetical. First, the prayers have been non-denominational and second, the School Boards can easily find ways to accommodate everyone ... except atheists who insist on censoring all prayer. I do oppose censorship of school prayer, and the phony arguments used to justify that censorship, such as atheists pretending to be concerned about the wishes of people of different religions.--Aschlafly 12:14, 5 December 2007 (EST)
The Bill of Rights was created primarily to prevent "tyranny of the majority". It was recognized by the founders of our democracy that simple majority rule can easily deteriorate into that type of situation. Even if atheist are the only ones who do not want their kids put into a situation where they are subjected to religious beliefs of others, they are a minority that has the right to at least fight against it. Liberty means "freedom from" as well as "freedom to". We are all given "freedom from" the religious beliefs of others so that our "freedom to" practice our own religion (or lack there of) is protected. In any case, many christian groups feel the same as the atheist in this regard. MichaelA 12:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)
It's not true that we are all given freedom from the religious beliefs of others. If we attend a government school, we are taught the atheistic origins myth (evolution) as though it is true. This is the government favouring atheistic religions such as Secular Humanism over theistic religions such as Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 21:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)
You know, you except for calling Secular-Humanism a religion, you are right. Our government has made the decision to keep the at least government-funded public institutions secular. Once again, this is to maintain freedom from others religions. Even if I would concede the atheism or secular-humanism are religions (which I don't), they are not being "taught" in our schools. The theory of evolution is our current best science regarding the orgins of life. When that changes, something else will be taught. No favoritism is present. MichaelA 12:29, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Secular humanism is a religion (depending on which definition of "religion" is used), and has even been called that by American courts. Evolution is the origins myth of atheistic ideologies, not the "current best science". It is contrary to science, as science shows, for example, that mutations destroy genetic information, not create it. So there is favouritism, even if inadvertent. Philip J. Rayment 21:48, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.Claude 21:43, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Saying something like that with no supporting argument is like saying, "I'm right, you're wrong". It doesn't carry much weight. Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I was not aware that "American courts" were in a position to define my beliefs - or non-beliefs for me.Claude 21:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Then I'm pleased to be able to educate you! Philip J. Rayment 21:57, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Ah. Well, actually, until the American Empire has complete legal and political control over my country, I'm afraid that I still have the privilege of living in a country where the courts do not have the power to define my religious beliefs. I am sorry to hear that that is not the case for you.Claude 22:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)
I don't live in America either, but the point is that Secular Humanism has been found to be a religion, and you have not provided any reason for it not being so, except to point out that it doesn't fit a particular definition of the word "religion". Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Good to hear that Muslims and Jews can have school prayers if they so desire. What about Wiccans? Will they get to dance naked and sacrifice a goat before class commences? Freedom of religion is very important. GavinSproat 12:22, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Just out of curiosity, how would one go about leading a non-denominational prayer for a class? I was under the impression that most prayers are pretty much specific to one religion. I'm not saying it'd be impossible, I just haven't had much experience with prayer like this in a public setting, and I'm not sure how such a prayer would be made. Maybe something like the aforementionned mandated moment of silence some schools have? Or... I don't know, really. Feebasfactor 17:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Having non-denominational prayers for Christians, Moslems and Jews would be fairly easy since they all worship the same God. Not sure how one could

accomodate others though. Perhaps they could do their thing in turn after. CillaHunt 19:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Can a Muslim teacher - 5 times a day - lead his students in prayer? No. Can a Christian do the same? No. Prayers are not non-denominational - & anyone who thinks so isn't thinking about the specifics - the truth is minor differences even in things like style can prove a prayer's source. Teachers should not influence other's religions by leading a class in prayer. However, they should, along with anyone else, feel free to pray individually (or in a group assuming the group has prior consent - for example, my old high school had a thing where students and teachers would go out and pray near the flagpost every week.--IDuan 19:02, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Most secondary schools (I said MOST), allow for religious after school organizations, if they can find a faculty sponsor and obey school rules. Believe it or not, people tend to have strong views about religion, and having teacher led prayers would cause a lot of problems...and not just from non-Christians and athiests. How would a protestant feel about a Catholic teacher praying the rosary with their students?Maestro 21:50, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Funny, I thought there was already a "lot of problems", i.e. people not happy with the current situation. So how is banning prayer to avoid problems achieving anything? Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Great Site

Fossilized soft tissue proves the earth is young, chimps better than liberal university students! This place is a great source of entertainment. The satire is great, The trustworthy encyclopedia is a killer site. Keep up the good work, it is much appreciated by people of humour. SarahBarr 15:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)

"Humor" is the American spelling of the word, my friend. Learn something here, if you can open your mind first.--Aschlafly 16:36, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Non-Us spellings are narrow-minded! That's a cracker. Do you folks have a TV show on cable or for download? HumeOrr 19:48, 4 December 2007 (EST)