Talk:Main Page/archive72

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

autism and vaccines

maybe this could go in the news

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

We've discussed this before, and in this case the judge is probably wrong. The key to understanding this is in this paragraph:
"The ruling came from a panel of "special masters" who began hearing three test cases in 2007 involving children with autism -- a disorder that their parents contend was triggered by the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella combined with vaccines containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative."[1]
I am certainly no doctor, so I cannot give medical advice, but I do know that under no circumstances should anyone ever put mercury inside a human body. Karajou 23:59, 12 February 2009 (EST)
where was this discussed? the result were released today —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CiaraTo (talk)
It was a similar news item some months ago, and not related to what the judge said today. Karajou 00:09, 13 February 2009 (EST)
"under no circumstances should anyone ever put mercury inside a human body"? Not even if it was, say, combined with something else to make it safe? So I suppose you object to amalgum fillings. Not that you shouldn't—many people do—but such objection seems to me to be based on anecdotal evidence or irrational fear. Your comment just seems somewhat dogmatic from someone who claims not particular expertise in the topic. Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I claimed not to have expertise in medicine; I didn't say I had no knowledge of mercury. In my division onboard USS Shenandoah one of our work centers was the Gage Calibration Shop, which repaired gages involving mercury; the shop contained about 12 people, and the division as a whole had 40, yet it was mandatory training for all of us to respond to a mercury spill, and this training also involved knowledge of what mercury is. I've known since I was a kid in the early 1970's that mercury can cause brain damage in anyone by so much as breathing in the fumes, and the Navy knew it as well, and we never took chances with it. Karajou 12:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Elemental mercury, and several of its compounds, are indeed dangerous. However, a substance that is dangerous in one form does not mean it is dangerous in all circumstances. For example, chlorine (in some forms) can be incredibly harmful. Hydrogen can also be very dangerous. But both form compounds that are put into the human body all the time--salt and water. I don't know much about thimerosal (perhaps it does involve a risk for some people) but determining its potential for harm should involve much more than simply listing the elements it is composed of. The compound itself has to be considered.--Recorder 13:57, 13 February 2009 (EST)

These people are talking about autism as if it's the end of the world, but it's not. I have ausperger's syndrome (mild autism) and I can honestly say that I don't mind having it. This is partly due to the fact that I don't know what it's like not to have it, but also it gives me different strengths from other people. Ok, so I can't hold a decent conversation or read body language, but I do very well in exams because I remember things in the tiniest detail. Also, autism is usually diagnosed around the age of 2, which is about 3-6 months after the MMR vaccine is given. These children may well have developed autism whether or not they had the vaccine. There may well be a correlation between the vaccine and autism cases, but that does not mean that there is a causal relationship. Ululator 11:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds like you have a great attitude, but parents should be told and warned beforehand. There is nothing implausible about vaccines causing or exacerbating autism.--Andy Schlafly 14:10, 15 February 2009 (EST)

True, but equally there is nothing implausible about bananas causing autism. Until there is solid (ie not circumstantial) evidence about the causal effects, there is no point in withdrawing children from the MMR programme, as this will definitely cause an increase in disease.Ululator 18:03, 15 February 2009 (EST)

If you really think "bananas" have equal chance of causing autism as vaccination, then further discussion with you is pointless. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 15 February 2009 (EST)

The bananas analogy was supposed to show you how ridiculous you sound in thinking that because it is plausible that the vaccine causes autism, then it actually does cause autism. No-one thinks that bananas cause autism even though some children may be given bananas for the first time around the age of 18-24 months. There may be a correlation, but there is obviously no causal relationship. It is exactly the same for the MMR. What I find most upsetting about this whole story though, is that parents want to avoid their children getting autism, so they don't give them a drug which has no proven link to autism at all, the result of which decision could easily cost the children their lives. Does this mean that parents consider autism to be a fate as bad as possible death? I personally think that it is very insulting to autistic people if parents are willing to risk their children's lives to avoid giving them autism. It's disgusting behaviour, because autism is not all that bad. It may be harder for the parents to look after an autistic child, but the child is usually very happy, and unconcerned about the condition. Ululator 08:53, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Latest news story

The news story linked at the top of the page, about the wildfires in Australia and the man fined for clearing trees, contains some harsh, not-family friendly language. I think it should be removed if we can't find another source covering the story in a more appropriate way. BenjaminC 01:42, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I've found another link, although it's not primarily about this incident, so I've modified the Main Page entry also. It's a bit awkward, but avoids the language of that news article. Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)

'Freedom of Religion' in Britain news story

A carer is struck off the list after a girl in her care converts from Islam to Christianity of her own free will. So much for freedom of religion. [2] ETrundel 08:12, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Posted. Thanks for the news post. --DeanStalk 08:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I was also posting it, and I liked mine better, so I over-rode yours! (Sorry). Britain has just sunk to a new low, I'm sorry to say. Philip J. Rayment 09:06, 13 February 2009 (EST)
That's a sad story. It seems like the foster parent did all the right things, including trying to encourage the girl to find peace and spiritual growth in her original religion. The article also mentions that she's been a foster parent to over 80 children, and it seems like this was the only significant issue to arise. A 16-year-old is close enough to adulthood to start making up their own mind about faith, but I can also understand the concerns of the agency when there's a perception that the foster parent might be influencing a child to change faiths. In this specific case I'm inclined to give the foster parent the benefit of the doubt, and I wish the agency would have as well. She comes across as a caring, sincere person who took her responsibility seriously, and would have been able to help many more children in need if given the chance. --DinsdaleP 09:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Good summary. I think you are likely partly right about the agency, but I think it's also borne of a view that there's no right religion; that one's religion is merely part of their culture, and therefore what's happened in this case is that the girl's culture has been interfered with. But as a Christian I reject that view of religion, and therefore claim that the view is anti-Christian. Philip J. Rayment 18:36, 13 February 2009 (EST)
As a committed Christian, I wouldn't expect you to view other religions as equally valid when compared to yours, but that's not really the issue here. I would think that people would be more reluctant to put their children up for adoption or into foster care if there was no restriction against the caregivers being able to try and convert the child's faith. It's hard enough for some people to choose adoption over abortion, so they should be able to be given the assurance that if they request their child to be adopted or fostered under a certain faith, the honoring of that request is something they could have confidence in. --DinsdaleP 19:18, 13 February 2009 (EST)
It's not just me as a committed Christian. Most religions, including atheistic ones, have the same views about their religions. I take your point about people being reluctant to give up their children to someone of a different set of beliefs, but their reluctance is not really the issue here either, as this was presumably a court-enforced foster arrangement, not a voluntary one. In such cases, the parents have effectively ceded their rights anyway. Philip J. Rayment 23:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)
What you're describing would be a nightmare to many people here - the idea that the government can take children away from bad parents (a good thing), but then decide what faith these children should be raised in based on the beliefs of the foster parents they are placed with. Many foster placements are meant to be temporary, particularly in cases where the courts decide if other relatives like grandparents or aunts/uncles could raise the children. It would be wrong to have children raised in a family that follows a given faith to be placed with foster parents who then criticize that faith and try to proselytize them to a different one, only to have the children given back to appropriate relatives who adhere to the original faith. These situations are traumatic enough for children without them being subjected to conflicting messages about their eternal reward or punishment because of how they were raised to date. When I was divorced from my first wife, we agreed to work together to raise our children in her faith rather than mine, because it is the faith of both of our families and would best help the children relate to their heritage. This is not easy for me, but I've decided that if they choose a different path for themselves they should do it as I did - as someone who had the benefit of being fully-raised in his family's faith, with the freedom to choose differently as an adult. --DinsdaleP 11:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)
"...the idea that the government can ... decide what faith these children should be raised in...": But if they, for example, put them with foster parents of the same faith because it's the same faith, then aren't they doing exactly that? Philip J. Rayment 04:37, 15 February 2009 (EST)
That's a fair point, but in that case it's a decision based on doing as much as possible to give the child a consistent upbringing, as opposed to deciding that one faith is better than another. --DinsdaleP 14:28, 15 February 2009 (EST)
You always hear about stuff like this in England; sometimes, it's hard not to get the impression that the Government wants every ethnic group and religion to have the exact same amount of rights; as there are 100x as many Christians as Muslims, each Muslim must have 100x as many rights as each Christian. I know it sounds stupid, but as the same time it seems to be the only pronciple they can possibly work on to get such results. ETrundel 10:17, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I wouldn't really agree with the "100x as many rights as each Christian" bit, but as I've just said above, they treat all religions as equal (which is a case of holding a position about religion; it's not a case of being neutral), and therefore do engage in some "affirmative action" in favour of non-Christian religions because of a perception that Christianity is favoured. Historically, this is true, but in more recent times it's been secular humanism that has been favoured, not Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 18:36, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Well, I did say it sounded stupid! ETrundel 11:54, 14 February 2009 (EST)
I didn't see this as a specifically anti-Christian action. It seemed more like an overreaction to concerns over foster parents influencing a child to change their religion. I don't think the fact that it was a conversion to Christianity that was at issue - if the change was to Judaism, Taoism or Atheism the problem would have been the same because of the Muslim prohibition against leaving the faith. --DinsdaleP 11:03, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps so for Judaism, and maybe Taoism. I'm not so convinced about atheism. Otherwise see my further comments above. Philip J. Rayment 18:36, 13 February 2009 (EST)

If the story were reversed (swap Muslim for Christian) either no one would care enough to place the story here, or whoever made the decision across the pond would be hailed as a Christian hero. Jros83 13:52, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Well, yes, because this is a CHRISTIAN wiki, and in the end, as with all monotheistic religions, it's a case of 'this town ain't big enough for the both of us'. Only one group can be right. ETrundel 16:17, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps, Jros83, you are right about nobody caring to place the story here. But I for one would still not condone a foster carer being sacked because a teenager in their care chose to change religions. Further, as ETrundel touches on above and I've also mentioned above, part of the issue is about which is the right religion. Philip J. Rayment 18:36, 13 February 2009 (EST)

My experience is that there are usually two sides to stories like these, and the truth often lies somewhere in the middle. Just a reminder that the article is written from the point of view of the foster mother, and we do not know the other side of this story. Social workers must be careful about privacy issues, especially when children are involved, and so there is no explanation at all in the article from their side of the story. It's a very delicate issue. Taking care of a child of another religion would be extremely difficult for someone who felt strongly that their own faith is the only Truth. How could you NOT hope that the child would accept the Truth while in your care? How could you take what you felt was the best possible care of the child and NOT offer them the opportunity to participate in your faith? Was it appropriate for the council to place this child in a home of another faith in the first place? Why were they OK with church-going and not baptism? How would we have felt if a Christian girl was placed in a Muslim home, and began to practice that faith while in care? What other issues might have been present? I would like to hear the other side of the story. --Hsmom 21:30, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Nicely stated. I'd have to say that I agree with you on all points, --DinsdaleP 21:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Hsmom, you are right about the carer wanting to influence the child. Caring for a child and not influencing them is likely impossible and in any case undesirable. For one, you would often need to influence them in the direction of letting them know that they are loved. And what better way than to introduce them to the God of love. Which leads to the question of what was appropriate for the council to do. By putting them with someone of their own faith, they are effectively deciding either that that faith is the best, or that the choice of religion is unimportant. Which simply means that councils cannot be neutral in such matters. So the question is not one of neutrality, but which is the best one to choose. There's also the issue of choice of carers. I expect that there would be many more Christian carers available than Muslim carers, for example. So that also restricts the choice. Philip J. Rayment 23:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)

This is an interesting discussion, but I don't think it comes down to a choice between "which faith is best" versus "faith doesn't matter". It's not the job of government to make any choice as to "which faith is best" - that's for individuals to decide for themselves, unless we're living in a country like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Faith does matter, which is why the best policy is not to encourage foster caregivers to proselytize their wards in whatever faith they think is best, but to try their best to care for these children for who they are, without passing judgment on the faith they were raised in up to that point. I have a good adult friend who spent most of her childhood life in various foster homes because she was never formally adopted. Imagine the conflict a child like her would go through if each change of foster parents resulted in the new ones criticizing the beliefs of the child and the previous caregivers, and encouraging conversion. There is nothing anti-Christian about raising a non-Christian foster child with good values derived from caregivers' faith, but letting the child decide as an adult if they want to convert. --DinsdaleP 11:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)
Children are quite capable of deciding to follow God. It's not "faith" that matters, but God, and treating all religions as equal is the same as treating them as all wrong, which a government should not be doing. Philip J. Rayment 04:37, 15 February 2009 (EST)

British 12 year old father

A better link than the Sun for this would be I think it gives a more detailed cover of the story. This story leaves me speechless...JSmith2 13:06, 13 February 2009 (EST)Jsmith2

Leaves me nauseous. Both their parents ought to be... I won't say. Jros83 13:58, 13 February 2009 (EST) Oh and this is where I would have condoned an early abortion. Welcome to a ruined life, kids. Congrats on ruining another life from the very start. Jros83 13:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Abortion is murder, whatever the context. The child is not responsible for the immaturity of her parents, or the criminal irresponsibility of her grandparents. Let us hope that she does not follow in their footsteps: classroom prayer and proper abstinence education would be a good start. Macaulay 14:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not going to debate you on abortion, that's a dead-end. However, hope all you want but more often than not kids in these situations (the cnhild parents, I'm not talking about the infant though the same will happen with the infant at some point too) end up as screwed up as their parents and the whole thing perpetuates itself. I hope what YOU hope for happens but it's not bloody likely. Jros83 14:33, 13 February 2009 (EST)
Seems a bit late for abstinence education, doesn't it? Given the dysfunctional and irresponsible conduct of both sets of (grand)parents to date, I doubt they would able to teach these kids to be good parents themselves, or to raise the baby properly on their behalf. I'm not one for government interfering with families, but this situation is so messed up that I'd have to think the best thing for this baby would be if it were adopted by a pair of responsible adults, and the child-welfare authorities worked with the (grand) parents to raise this boy and girl more responsibly. --DinsdaleP 14:41, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I think he was referring to abstinence education for the baby (when it is old enough) to break the cycle. Philip J. Rayment 18:38, 13 February 2009 (EST)
I just can't believe how blazé the 'father' is being about the whole thing. At 13, he doesn't know what 'financially' means, and when the question is explained, he says that he occasionally gets £10 from his dad, as if he thinks that will cover it. I think I read somewhere that he was one of nine(9) children, which tells you all you need to know about the value of abstinence in that household. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is beginning to happen more and more often in Britain, a product of the welfare state. ETrundel 16:23, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, British teenage pregnancy rates per 100,000 are far far lower than American ones, so it is clearly not 'a product of the welfare state'. I think you'll find that the countries which have the lowest teenage pregnancy rates are those which, rather than preaching abstinence and the horrors of sex to young people, educate young people about contraception, safe sex, STDs, abortion, etc. Take countries like Holland, for example. In schools there, they have Sex Ed classes for children as young as 10 years old, teaching children that it is not something that should be shameful. Instead, they actively and freely talk about it, so children don't feel that they have to experiment to see what this new phenomena is - they already know about it. Holland also has some of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world. Ululator 00:23, 15 February 2009 (GMT)

If that's really what happens, then perhaps you are right. But there's no need for abstinence education to teach that sex is a "horror" nor "shameful". So if countries such as America really are teaching such things (which I have my doubts about), then the solution would be to teach that sex is honourable and lovely, but inside marriage where it was designed to be. Further, I doubt that many teens "experiment" with sex to find out what it is. Rather, they do it because they know it's supposed to be nice, and are taught by people with agendas that it's okay to do outside of marriage. Indeed, misrepresenting abstinence education as necessarily something that is negative is not going to help the situation. Philip J. Rayment 04:26, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Suspect Arrested in Aussie Fires

Looks like the authorities are making progress, per this article. --DinsdaleP 13:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Update on the 13-year-old father

Just six days after the birth questions are already being raised over whether 13-year-old Alfie Patten is actually the father of the child. Two other boys have alleged that they slept with the mother around that time, and they also allege that other boys did too. Here. ETrundel 14:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I don't see that as any of our concern. It's certainly a good example of moral decay, but harping over who is the father is just gossip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LewisW (talk)


"Speechless: How Gays silence Christians" has been pulled from the airwaves because the "tolerant" LBGT community doesn't tolerate Christians: [12]
I looked into this a bit, and I think WorldNetDaily's characterization of the story is a bit on the "hype" side. What could be better publicity for a show about silencing Christians than the show itself not being aired? It sounds like the TV station was originally willing to air the show, decided at the last minute to move the timeslot due to a change in the schedule, and then got slammed with phone calls (presumably from both sides) while it was trying to get a new timeslot worked out. Here's what I found. --Hsmom 14:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Mon Feb 9: This paid program was scheduled prior to the announcement of President Obama's press conference airing tonight. The paid program just didn't feel "right" leading into the president's conference. With all due respect to the paid program, we would not usually schedule a paid program into any similar event.

Tues Feb 10: In a statement Tuesday, Diane Kniowski, the General Manager of WOOD/WOTV/WXSP, said, "The scheduling of the show slipped through our filters." "We don't pre-judge people's ideas or opinions," she said. "However, we have restrictions on controversial programming and key time periods. We are willing to sell a paid program time period during traditional paid program times. We have offered them Saturday, Feb. 14, 2009 from 2-3 p.m. We have not heard if they have accepted that time period. If the show airs, we will have disclaimers at the beginning and end of the show stating that these are not the opinions or views of this station.

Web Feb 11: In a statement Wednesday, WOOD/WOTV/WXSP General Manager Diane Kniowski said the offer is now off the table. "We made a gesture of the 2-3 p.m. Saturday time period. It's been 24 hours and we had no response," Kniowski said. "Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else's fight. Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter."

The entire concept of the movie is ridiculous. If you're failing to win hearts and minds in the marketplace, that's not "censorship," that's losing the debate. I guess the persecution/victimization complex is the only way for the right to convert their thorough drubbing in the polls and in public opinion into a moral victory. Let's remember that it's not "censorship" unless an authority figure is completely blocking the speech act, and the speech act is only blocked for subjective reasons.-LuciusF 14:46, 16 February 2009 (EST)

new encyclopedia of Christianity banned as "too Christian"


RJJensen 08:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

London Times claims fraudulent research by Wakefield in autism/vaccine research

I'm very disturbed by the silence by almost all parties over the Feb. 8, 2009 Times article claiming that Doctor Andrew Wakefield, who linked autism to vaccination, was fixing his data. I also had never heard that his study consisted of only 12 patients. Shouldn't something debunking this claim of fraud be put up on the main page? - AdmiralNelson 14:15, 16 February 2009 (EST)

This shouldn't come as a surprise. I'm sure that's why people like me haven't commented. The only evidence ever linking vaccines to autism was paranoia; finally the newspapers are waking up. Combined with the huge victory for science in the autism omnibus trial (see a few sections up), it might be time for this little conspiracy theory to die.-LuciusF 14:43, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Presidents' Day

If liberals call it "Presidents' Day" because they "pretend that all presidents deserve to be honored," aren't they actually doing themselves a disservice by implicitly honoring conservative presidents as well? --Economist 14:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Today is the United States' holiday for "Washington's Birthday," by U.S. law, 5 USCS § 6103. But guess what? Liberals determined to deify the president insist on calling today "Presidents' Day," to diminish Washington and pretend that all presidents deserve to be honored.[9] I'm not sure what this means when it says "liberals determined to deify the president". "Deify" means "to make a god of; exalt to the rank of a deity; personify as a deity; ... to adore or regard as a deity". [3] Does that mean the liberals want to deify the current president, or the office of president, or all past presidents, or Washington, or Washington and Lincoln, or what? The link was to a Google search of "President's Day", so that didn't clarify the item. My impression is that the federal government calls it Washington's birthday, some states agree (and some of them also celebrate Lincoln's birthday), and other states call it President's day (combining the birthdays of Washington and Lincoln, which used to be separate holidays, if I remember right, in order to create Martin Luther King Day without adding another holiday.) [4] I don't understand how the same action can both "deify the president" and also "diminish Washington". Perhaps someone who understands this item can rewrite it to make it clearer? --Hsmom 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
The headline is clear. Liberals worship government officials, and deify them. Extreme examples could be found in communist Russia, but it is seen here also with the liberal worship of Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and now Obama, who even joined with the liberal chorus by using Lincoln's inaugural Bible for his own public (and not his real) oath.
Today is "Washington's Birthday" by federal law, and there is no plausible other explanation for the liberal's misnaming it nationwide as "President's Day."--Andy Schlafly 15:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)
The origin of the term "President's Day" wasn't liberals trying to deify the president. The term originated from a proposed holiday that would combine Washington and Lincoln's birthdays into one (That's two conservative presidents, mind you). This "news" story makes absolutely no sense and should be removed or rewritten--never has President's Day (as it is actually officially called in some states) been about honoring all presidents. -Ilikecake 16:06, 16 February 2009 (EST)
First, admit that liberals do deify government officials, which is undeniable. Second, liberal insistence on using the incorrect term "President's Day," which is contrary to law, defies any other explanation.--Andy Schlafly 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Federal holidays only apply to employees of non-essential federal government offices, as well as to banks or stock or futures exchanges that are regulated by the federal government. Because Congress does not have the power to create "national holidays" (this being beyond the scope of its powers), any observance of the holiday by states or by private employers is based either on state law or on tradition, and as has already been noted, several states do officially recognize "Presidents' Day." As for the deification of the president, what about all the people who wanted Reagan on money?[[5]] --Economist 17:03, 16 February 2009 (EST)
"Economist", your denial of the obvious only destroys your credibility. You have free will, but you're not fooling anyone by denying how liberals deify the president, and therefore prefer "President's Day" even though federal law expressly establishes it as "Washington's Birthday."
I suppose that if you were in the communist Soviet Union then you would have denied that Stalin was deified also. Suit yourself.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I agree that there are presidents who are highly regarded by liberals, including, as you noted, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, liberals absolutely hated George W. Bush and weren't thrilled with his father, or with Reagan. Conversely, conservatives are fans of Reagan, and not of Clinton and Obama. Some Christian conservatives routinely pray for the president no matter which party he's from. I have friends and relatives from many parts of the political spectrum, and I can't think of any of them, liberal or conservative, who would give any president god-like status, or who worship government officials. Presidents and government officials are human beings, with all the strengths and flaws that we all share, and most people, whether liberal or conservative, recognize this, I think. The simple explanation for the popularity of the term President's Day is that it is the official name of the holiday in some states (Wisconsin, Washington, Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Delaware, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma). Other names include Washington's and Jefferson's Birthday (Alabama), Washington's birthday and Daisy Gatson Bates Day (Arkansas), Washington-Lincoln Day (Colorado), and Washington's and Lincoln's Birthday (Minnesota). [6]--Hsmom 19:11, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You deny far too much, Hsmom. Join the "Economist" in losing credibility by refusing to admit that liberals deify government officials.
You don't have to be a math major or expert in federal law to realize that your examples don't stack up in numbers or significance against recognition of Washington's Birthday, yet liberals whitewash that recognition and insist on "President's Day." Note, by the way, how Democratic the majority of the states are (or were) in your examples. Think there was a genuine groundswell of support in Texas to create President's Day in order to honor Lincoln equally with Washington??? Not quite.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I am sorry, but please explain to me how the link to the article which is simply a google search of President's Day in any way justifies the point that liberal deify the presidency. Is there anything out there (in the entire world wide web---a pretty big place mind you) where liberals or liberal groups advocate changing Washington's Day to Presidents Day and if there is anything out there and judging by the fact that the only link is a google search, then is there anything that would then support the idea that liberals are doing this for ulterior motives. Mr. Schlafly are you a parodist? You may block me now. Thank you.Anthonybolden 20:28, 16 February 2009 (EST)

while Washington's Birthday was originally established to honor George Washington, the term Presidents Day was informally coined in a deliberate attempt by advertisers to honor multiple presidents. That doesn't make sense, Washingtons birthday sale sounds just as good as Presidents day sale. Though if true, then it is fair to say advertisers must work with the media to enact changes. The media is dominated by liberals. Why did the liberals want to change the holiday? In 1955, NATO wanted to move the day, not change the name. By 1968, somebody had included it in the federal bill, but was never enacted. In 1968, the media was working on its anti-American/ socialist image for counter-culture Vietnam generation. What better way to rip down the significance of George Washington than by eliminating the holiday of his birth and in retrospect the countries birth- American Democracy. Or how about the actual style of the word presented. Is it Presidents Day, Presidents' Day or President's Day? Well we'll have you know that Presidents Day, this style is favored by the Associated Press Stylebook, another liberal-led organization which most media follow lockstep. Why are the liberals hands all over this? Why rip down a towing figure in U.S. American history liberals? It's a conspiracy? No, liberal deceit.--jpatt 21:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I hate to break it to you guys, but today is NOT Washington's Birthday, he was born on Feb. 22 not Feb doesn't it make sense that it is NOT Washington's birthday and is President's Day....just a thought.......--IScott 21:43, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Right we know, the holiday was moved by the Uniform Holiday Act of 1968.--jpatt 21:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Oh, haha well now I feel rather foolish....--IScott 21:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Washington's birthday was (and still is) the official name of the holiday, and it used to be celebrated on Feb. 22. However, several states chose to honor other presidents on or near that date as well; for instance, Massachusetts recognizes all presidents from that state. Lincoln (for obvious reasons) became a popular choice as an "alternative" president to honor on the holiday, and the holiday started becoming known as Presidents Day. The 1968 proposal jpatt refers to failed in its attempt to officially change the name of the holiday, but its proponents succeeded in moving it to a Monday in between Washington and Lincoln's birthdays. As others have said, the "Presidents Day" unofficial name is probably best explained by the lack of uniformity among states in which presidents they chose to recognize in addition to Washington. Of course, in the 1980s advertisers discovered that it was easier to market Presidents Day, and that probably had an effect also.--Recorder 21:59, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Lots of vague denials here, yet no one will admit how liberals deify government officials, as communists did for Stalin and Lenin in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. To liberals, the "President" is an object of worship (or extreme scorn in a few cases). A liberal views the President as somehow above everyone else, and "President's Day" is in honor and recognition of that deification, despite the law expressly stating otherwise. Pathetic, I know, but atheists don't have the real God and this helps fill their vacuum.--Andy Schlafly 16:35, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Liberals so crave attention, they will argue the slightest thing! --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:56, 17 February 2009 (EST)
That does play a factor. Show me a group of five people, one of whom craves attention, and I'll show you a liberal.--Andy Schlafly 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Once again Andy, we have a disagreement. No surprise there. I believe that the reason many people refer to the day as "Presidents day" is a simple one: It's not Washington's actual birthday. Granted, it did use to be, but Congress changes it in order to grant federal employees (and all those that follow similar holiday schedules) more 3 day weekends in the year. The more important question is: why should we care what the day is called? In most of the world it's just known as "Monday". Oh, and I of course disagree that liberals deify government officials. At least, that the logical ones do. --ShawnJ 19:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)

ShawnJ, you lose all credibility when you say that you "disagree that liberals deify government officials." What you do think the deification of Lenin, Stalin and Castro is about? Or do you deny that deification also?
I repeat: atheists don't have God, and something inevitably fills that vacuum. The presidency plays that role for many liberals. Honor and worship!--Andy Schlafly 19:31, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, I agree with you that liberals often deify presidents, but you lose credibility as you refuse to concede that other things contributed to the name "Presidents Day". Other people worship government officials, but there are many factors which might cause it to not merely be called Washington day. You seemed to have, by and large, ignored those factors. Is there something you know that you're not telling us. Perhaps the proposal in 1968 was made by a well-known liberal? or the holiday was specifically endorsed by a liberal? or something like that? --Ṣ₮ёVeN 20:25, 17 February 2009 (EST)
I agree with Steven in that: yes, many liberals do deify presidents. However, while this could be the reason for the name-change, it also might not be. We don't know for sure and we shouldn't pretend to.
Note also, the word "many". A persisting problem on this site is the generalization of liberals and their beliefs. All too often, you see "Liberals do this, liberals do that" and it's not only unbecoming, but it also damages our conservative name. Using the issue at hand, I believe there is a percentage of conservatives (non-Christian conservatives, that is) that deify President Reagan. Most don't, but you can't deny some do. I sure wouldn't like it for liberals to throw me under that group of "Reagan worshipers" just because some are. FAckles 20:08, 18 February 2009 (EST)
My apologies Andy. I foolishly thought that were were talking about American liberals here, and weather or not they deified government officials. I'll be sure to take into account the fringe beliefs of extremist governments when referring about liberals in the future. Thank you. --ShawnJ 22:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Andy, how exactly do liberals deify Presidents? What do they say about US presidents that conservatives don't? The average liberal has just as much good and just a little bad to say about Kennedy as a conservative does about Reagan. Take your stance on Reagan. What bad things do you have to say about him? If you don't have anything bad to say about him, does that constitute deifying him? If not, then what does? Can you please define some of your terms, try and tell us specifically what activities you are referring to when you talk about "deifying" an official?

When I think about the Soviet Union "deifying" Lenin, I usually think of the party presenting Lenin as unquestionably flawless, infallible and benevolent, a source of truth and wisdom (all key characteristics of God), and backing this up with force. It wasn't just that they emphasised the good rather than the bad in Lenin, or that they believed his negative aspects were unimportant - they believed that there was nothing bad about Lenin and that statements to the contrary could only be made by counterrevolutionaries and saboteurs. Now, lunatic fringe aside, I don't think the Democrats have started treating Lincoln or Kennedy in that way. They believe that the good in them outweighed the bad (if they didn't, they probably wouldn't be democrats), perhaps greatly so, but they don't think that criticisms of those figures constitute some kind of dangerous heresy.

Also, as your own website states, most of America is christian - and that includes the vast majority of liberals. So what gap are they trying to fill by "deifying" their president.JHanson 20:30, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Crazy British values

Might be a good news article showing the imbecilic sentencing decisions made in the UK by some Judges. Man sees his family torn apart by heroin, confronts the dealer in his house and flushes his heroin down the toilet. He gets jailed for breech of the peace!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSmith2 (talk)

Did he put it down the toilet, or down his breeches? Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 16 February 2009 (EST)

"Hero" Border Patrol Agents?

I suppose people here are glad that Bush commuted the sentences of these two men because the person they shot was later convicted of smuggling. However, wrongful acts committed against someone later convicted as a criminal are no less wrongful because of that fact. There is a reason that these men were convicted in a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and there's a reason their lengthy sentences were upheld on appeal, after the higher court reviewed the facts in the case without being swayed by emotion or pressure from anti-immigration factions. As with Scooter Libby, Bush insulted the intelligence of an American jury and the concept of equal treatment under the law by doing an end-run around the justice system to satisfy political interests. This Fox New article from the appeals trial contains an appropriate comment from the prosecutor:

"Some in the media and on the Internet have tried to portray agents Compean and Ramos as heroes, but that narrative is false," U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said last December. "The actions of Compean and Ramos in shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect, destroying evidence, and engaging in a cover-up, are serious crimes."

Conservatives are supposed to stand up for the truth, and the truth in this case is even if one believes that shooting at a fleeing suspect who never displayed or fired a weapon is justified, the facts presented at trial proved that they lied and destroyed evidence. This was found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt by a dozen fellow Americans, and it was arrogant and insulting of Bush to undo their work and the careful reconsideration of the appeals court with the stroke of a pen as he left his office. If someone can explain how men who dishonor their badges and engage in deceit to try and evade justice are heroes, I'll try and keep an open mind about it. --DinsdaleP 18:23, 17 February 2009 (EST)

You sound like an apologist for the Constitution Party, DinsdaleP. The U.S. government prosecuted agents Compean and Ramos for wounding a drug smuggler on the U.S.-Mexico border. Interestingly, the testimony that ultimately led to their conviction was provided by the wounded drug smuggler himself, who was brought back from Mexico, granted immunity and provided free medical treatment for his cooperation.
The conviction of Ramos and Compean represented a compelling case for a presidential pardon for one reason: prison sentences of 11 and 12 years are not justified by any version of the facts. The drug smuggler contends that, upon being stopped with his 700 pound cargo of marijuana, he was escaping to Mexico and presented no threat to the agents. Thus, the nine millimeter slug in his rear-end represents an unjustified assault. The agents claimed they had a reasonable apprehension and that he was armed, thereby justifying the wounding.
The point is this: the U.S. government had given a punishment to Ramos and Compean that exceeds the average penalty for murder. By all accounts, the drug smuggler was alive and kicking the next day, not even stopping to collect workers' compensation before his next attempted delivery of illegal drugs to our country.
As even the liberal Los Angeles Times said:
This page believes that the agents committed serious felonies and were rightly prosecuted. But the sentences they received were also too long. As we have argued in the past, taking discretion away from judges by imposing mandatory sentencing rules is almost never a good idea. By granting a commutation rather than a full pardon, Bush said -- rightly -- that the agents' punishment should be reduced but that the underlying conviction should remain on the books.

--₮K/Admin/Talk 20:10, 17 February 2009 (EST)

The agents shot and wounded an unarmed man who was running away instead of facing them. Even the agents had to acknowledge this because of the location of the bullet wound. The original jury found that the pair had lied and destroyed evidence to cover up the truth of the incident, and the appeals court concurred. This casts some doubt as to the credibility of the agents when they claim to have perceived a threat to their lives, especially when their idea of an "appropriate response" was to shoot the man as he fled facing away. I'm not pro-criminal-rights or anti-law-and-order, but when we empower law enforcement officers with a gun and a badge, they have to be held to the highest degree of accountability when convicted in a fair trial of evidence destruction and lying to cover up misconduct. If we gave these agents a light sentence, or even the same sentence a civilian would have received, then the message we are sending is that the bar for integrity isn't higher for the people entrusted with upholding and enforcing the law.
As for the "rightness" of Bush's commutation - sorry, no sale. There are many other cases where mandatory sentencing guidelines create a situation which people perceive as unjust, but he had not chosen to address any of them with commuted sentences - only for this isolated case that was politically charged. This was also the injustice of his commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence - he claimed the sentencing guidelines (drafted by his own appointees) were unfair, but the only sentence under this statute he commuted was for a political ally. If this was the right thing to do then he should have done it for everyone in the same circumstance, but that was not the case. --DinsdaleP 21:36, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Too bad their aim was so lousy, is all I can say. I am certain there are literally hundreds of thousands who would cry out like you, DinsdaleP, over the loss of yet another stinking drug dealer, but I am not one of them. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:53, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I never said that I'm supportive of criminals or drug smuggling - my point is that law-enforcement agents charged and convicted by a jury of misconduct and evidence tampering should not be considered "heroes". The thousands of law-enforcement agents and police across this nation who risk their lives to apprehend criminals and keep us safe without relying on deceit and misconduct are heroes. Ramos and Compean are not, and I've yet to see an explanation of why men trusted with upholding the law should be considered heroes when they break it themselves, and then engage in further deceit to avoid accountability. Ad-hominem attacks on me are not a convincing argument, and I'll move on because that's not worth rebutting. --DinsdaleP 09:33, 18 February 2009 (EST)
What's your opinion of the length of sentence? On this issue, personnally I tend to agree with the LA Times, that the conviction was correct, but the sentences were too harsh. Interestingly, the Washington Times said the same thing.--Frey 13:37, 18 February 2009 (EST)
At the risk of disappointing my critics here, I agree as well that the original sentences were excessive. It's rare to see charges of this nature result in sentences of over a decade, and they should have been lowered, but not commuted. That said, I'd still like someone to explain why these men should be regarded as heroes. --DinsdaleP 15:19, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Could someone...

Please tell me why some Americans are so convinced they're right and the rest of the world even when the evidence is against them... for example Evolution and Creationism. Evolution may have some holes in it, fair enough, but it does have a wealth of evidence supporting it. However, creationism has holes in it so big you can fit a freaking planet in them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimD33 (talk)

Either be civil or contribute elsewhere. And learn how to sign your name. --Economist 23:09, 17 February 2009 (EST)
TimD33, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Your question, like that one, is loaded. "Why do you favour creation over evolution when evolution is right and creation is wrong?" We disagree that the evidence does favour evolution over creation, and I note that your question was mere assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever. And by the way, I'm part of "the rest of the world"—I'm Australian. Philip J. Rayment 02:37, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Photograph Copyright

It has been brought to my attention that you are using a photograph of mine (of Richard Dawkins) on your Main Page, without attributing this photograph to me. Please do so, in accordance with my Creative Commons licensing agreement, that is linked form the Flickr page you took the image from. Thank you. ShanePope 22:40, 17 February 2009 (EST)

"For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page" We did that, and also linked to your page having the photo, but we're also happy to add your name to the caption per your request above.--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)
  • ShanePope = TimSS = TroyFletcher...all vandals full of liberal deceit. They should be made to substantiate their ownership, since this now appears the latest ploy of liberal vandals/parodists. --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:07, 18 February 2009 (EST)
TK, regardless of whether or not it was the same Shane Pope who uploaded the image to Flickr, it still behooves us to ensure that we repect the intellectual property of others. The use of many copyrighted images on this site under a blanket "Fair use for discussion" argument is quite worrying. Considering that such a small number of editors have upload rights and considering the strong legal background of Andy Schlafly, this is one area that Conservapedias should be very strong on. In any large project inevitably a few things will slip through the cracks but we could probably do a better job of minimizing the number of such occurances. AndyJM 07:53, 18 February 2009 (EST)
AndyJM, you illustrate a characteristic typical of liberals: you don't criticize the deceit of fellow travelers. Please learn how to spell occurrences also.--Andy Schlafly 08:02, 18 February 2009 (EST)
Andy, here's an idea; how about you exhibit perfect spelling and grammar yourself before you aim petty comments at other people? Oh, something that's been bugging me for a while: Not long ago you hawked down on a user for spelling 'publicly' as 'publically'. Just so you can practice your irritating sniping a bit better in future, you ought to know that the latter is in fact an acceptable albeit less succinct variation on the former. AnthonyQ 13:20, 18 February 2009 (EST)
TK had already emphatically criticised the actions of ShanePope. I don't see the value in adding a chorus of criticism. I was making a different point altogether about the use of copyrighted images on Conservapedia. I don't think that Conservapedia is worse than any other wiki on this matter. I simply think that we could excel at this. As an example of what I mean take a look at This is used in an article about Carol Browner. I cannot think that a fair use defence would work in this case. There is a market for selling photographs of people to illustrate articles about these people. If we were displaying the image to criticise the photograph from an artistic point of view then I would agree that this would most likely constitute fair use. Just my two cents. Note that IANAL. AndyJM 08:50, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Note also, AndyJM, that in the United States, most such images can legally be used for non-profit and educational endeavors, and Conservapedia most certainly qualifies under both of those criteria. --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Hmmm, I'd be a bit skeptical that the excemptions in the Copyright Act for educational use apply in this case. Perhaps Andy Schlafly could provide some guidance here? AndyJM 09:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I'd like to hear you criticize liberal deceit first, AndyJM. You've never done that before, have you?--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I've done a lot of work in copyright law and I think that fair use applies to all the illustrations I have seen at Conservapedia. US law is highly favorable to nonprofit educational use. (and if the author or photographer specifically asks us for specific credit, I think we should do so out of courtesy.) RJJensen 09:35, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I have criticised deceit on many occasions. I think that it is wrong to pretend to be the owner of the copyright on an artistic work when you are not the owner. Is that sufficient? AndyJM 09:39, 18 February 2009 (EST)
No. Too cagey, too circumspect, too wiki lawyer-like. You, AndyJM, strike me as yet another moral relativist. You are posting to raise an issue that is moot, from your UK Dublin perch, knowing absolutely nothing, really, about Copyright Law, in America. You have exhausted your alloted time for wasting time, IMO. Move on. --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:12, 18 February 2009 (EST)

IANAL, but most of these image uses are likely fair use. In general, nonprofits have a fair bit of leeway. There are likely also section 230 issues which would likely minimize Conservapedia's liability if a court decided that a use was not fair use. JoshuaZ 21:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Obama Opposes "Fairness Doctrine"

Conservapedians will be happy to hear that Obama officially announced his opposition to the revival of the "Fairness Doctrine." The story can be found here: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrasK (talk) - 19:01, 18 February 2009

Great! Hope you know that after lying and changing his position a number of issues already, I am not comforted by his announcement. Maybe he will just takes parts and not the whole doctrine and try to enforce it. His whole political career is marked by not reaching across to the opposition. This would be reaching across, which would be a first for BO.--jpatt 22:05, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I would debate you on that, but doing so would surely mark me for banning, so I leave you with the remarks that you should please try to keep to the topic and not make loaded, attacking statements. Good night good sir --AndrasK 22:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

No banning if the debate is civil, friendly, and on the page made for that purpose: Debate: Is Obama's recent opposition to the Fairness Doctrine good or bad?. I oppose the Fairness Doctrine myself, because it is nothing more than government control of what people say and who's allowed to hear it. Karajou 00:19, 19 February 2009 (EST)
I'm more curious as to what evidence there is that Obama ever supported the Fairness Doctrine. Is there a citation for that claim? JoshuaZ 11:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)
There was lots of talk on the Demo left, of bringing it back during the campaign, JoshuaZ. What the "issue" actually seems to be is highly clever campaign management, rather than actual substance. Throughout the 2008 campaign, it was more a case of letting people think what they want, rather than shoot down their speculation with substantive denials. In the real, non-wiki/academic world, "citations" are never demanded, and politicians rely on that. That Obama supported such early on, in his Senate days, that was a key phrase in his party speeches, as it has been the DNC mantra for many years. But like President Obama's support for FISA and No Child Left Behind, it was certainly more a matter, in the Presidential campaign, to allow his supporters to draw their own (false) conclusions, rather than correct them, and lose support from the left. That to me, is deceit. Also, during the campaign, it was Obama's surrogates who routinely raised that issue on orders, obviously of the campaign, a classic example of "selling the sizzle, but not the steak". --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:19, 19 February 2009 (EST)
The Fox article that this headline links to plainly states that the Obama campaign revealed his opposition to the fairness doctrine last summer. Aziraphale 12:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Also, he pledged that lobbyists would not be a part of his administration, last summer.--jpatt 13:08, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Dear jpatt,
Typically, a statement indented a step in from the statement above it means that it's a response to that statement. Thus, in context, I was referring to TK's contention that Obama's campaign kept quiet to allow his supporters to draw "false" conclusions. Also in context, your statement is a non sequitur. I get to say so few things between bans these days, please don't make me waste them like this. Aziraphale 13:27, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Typically, nobody but you has complained about indents on talkpage statements. Thus, in context of your reply to TK, was my reply to you. "...get to say a few things between bans"? Those poor persecuted liberals.--jpatt 13:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Dear jpatt,
I'm not complaining about the indents. I'm complaining about your lack of reading comprehension. This is twice in two attempts that you've failed to understand what I've said. And I'm not a liberal, never have been. Go ahead, ask around. Seriously, ask or something, then talk. Your reputation doesn't have much farther to drop, saying uninformed and silly things risks a complete cratering. Aziraphale 17:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Censoring the other side is central to the liberal belief system, and revival of the fairness doctrine in one way or another has been pushed by liberals.
It's ironic that the pro-evolution JoshuaZ plays dumb about how liberals and atheists censor their opponents, given the way that evolutionists censor any criticism of their theory on Wikipedia and in public schools.--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Dear Aschlafly,
He's playing dumb, therefore the information *is* out there that Obama supported the So Called Fairness Doctrine(tm)(c) in word or deed, right? Even this article ( that is clearly suspicious of Obama can't actually pin support of the Fairness Doctrine to him. You've clearly got him dead to rights on many other issues, why manufacture this one? Aziraphale 13:27, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Andy, if censoring the other side is central to liberal beliefs, pelase explain the "block first, ask questions never" mindset of this site. StephenK 14:43, 19 February 2009 (EST)

"Hey man, just play the gig. Never get involved in Politics."

--₮K/Admin/Talk 15:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

If that's really how you feel, why are you asking such a belligerent question which, if you are correct, will surely result in your blocking? (Unless of course you want to leave the site). ETrundel 15:13, 19 February 2009 (EST)
ETrundel, that is because there is little doubt StephenK belongs to a known vandal site, where their ideas are so small, so discredited, almost 100% of posts there are vile personal insults, attacks of the basest kind, against editors here. You see, they simply know no other way.....which is always true of closed, limited minds. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:34, 19 February 2009 (EST)
I really don't intend on starting a huge issue, but I will defend myself when attacked. You see Etrundel, I was just being very blunt. I am not against Conservapedia, I think it holds great potential, but blanket statments should be avoided when it's very obvious that we engage in the same thing.
And To TK, I am a "member" as you say of three wiki type sites: A little used name on Wikipedia (I do very little there except incidental grammar fixes, as I don't have the time to deal with Wikipedia editors) and a membership under a different name with The Muppet Wiki. I am not affilitated with any other sites, and I don't know why you'd assume such a thing. StephenK 17:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Lots of liberal rants above, yet no liberal will admit how Wikipedia and public schools *do* censor any criticism of evolution, not to mention other truths. Censorship is the sine qua non of being a liberal, and of course there are liberals pushing for censorship of talk radio. They've even proposed specific approaches. It doesn't require using the old fairness doctrine, but it might.--Andy Schlafly 17:23, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Great, so liberals want to censor all sorts of thing. Given that this discussion was actually about the specific example of the Fairness Doctrine, can that get fixed before the subject gets changed? I promise you can win the next one. Aziraphale 17:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

North Dakota measure regarding the start of human life

The linked article does not list the specifics of the law or link to it, but the proposition seems to create some troubling issues if human life is defined as beginning with a fertilized egg and must be protected as such:

  • What would this would this mean for fertility treatments where multiple eggs are fertilized and two implanted in the hope that one takes (a common procedure) - is this a casual or criminal disregard for life if one or both don't take?
  • If a woman freezes several embryos before receiving medical treatment that might leave her infertile, how should the law treat her if any are not implanted and brought to full term? If she dies before then, is the state responsible for these embryos as it would be for orphaned children?
  • Would this make a North Dakota rape victim liable for manslaughter, if she took a morning-after pill to prevent an egg fertilized by the rapist from being implanted?
  • Does this mean that women who drink, smoke or use harmful drugs during pregnancy could be charged with child endangerment since the prenatal risk of these actions is well-documented?
  • If a pregnant woman is ordered to bedrest, ignores the order and then miscarries, is that manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide?

These are not provocative liberal rants - they are serious questions that supporters of this act need to have answers for that they can live with, because defining human life as requiring full legal protection under the law from the moment of fertilization has serious consequences. Pro-life supporters may say that these are extreme or unrealistic examples, but that's the problem with a law that is so black-and-white in its nature - it leaves no room for reasonable allowances unless judges step in to reinterpret the law with each test case. --DinsdaleP 18:43, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I do not see what is complicated about these.
  • What would this would this mean for fertility treatments where multiple eggs are fertilized and two implanted in the hope that one takes (a common procedure) - is this a casual or criminal disregard for life if one or both don't take?
It is not disregard for life to try to allow a person to grow up, then fail. We do not punish people for accidental miscarriages.
  • If a woman freezes several embryos before receiving medical treatment that might leave her infertile, how should the law treat her if any are not implanted and brought to full term? If she dies before then, is the state responsible for these embryos as it would be for orphaned children?
The mother was responsible for these babies. Why are we allowing her to neglect them so that they do not grow up, leaving the state in charge of perhaps dozens of tiny, tiny babies?
  • Would this make a North Dakota rape victim liable for manslaughter, if she took a morning-after pill to prevent an egg fertilized by the rapist from being implanted?
To try and prevent a life from continuing is immoral. I do not know the manslaughter/murder statutes in North Dakota. Why do liberals all bring up rape, as if it's OK for one person to kill another because the first was raped? We will find and punish the rapist. You do not have the right to kill anyone who makes you uncomfortable because of the evil actions of another.
  • Does this mean that women who drink, smoke or use harmful drugs during pregnancy could be charged with child endangerment since the prenatal risk of these actions is well-documented?
Do you really think that heroin users should be allowed to kill babies because the babies are "their" babies?
  • If a pregnant woman is order to bedrest, ignores the order and then miscarries, is that manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide?
I do not know the particular statutes, but why would this situation be any different than if the child were a few months older?
BHarlan 18:59, 19 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure that I really understand the last answer, but otherwise, well said, BHarlan. Although I think you may have missed DinsdaleP's point in his second question about the mother dying.
DinsdaleP, if your point is that a black-and-white law should not be quite so black-and-white, but have provisions for special cases, then you may have a point (ignoring that you don't know the details), although at least some of your example "troubling issues" should not be troubling at all. But if your point is that the law should not have been made because of some extreme situations, then your point is not valid. Clearly (to those of us who believe that life begins at conception) a law that recognises that life begins at conception is far better than one that doesn't, despite a few special cases. To provide my own answers to your questions:
  • I've nothing to add to BHarlan's answer.
  • There's no reason that they can't be adopted out, whether by the government taking care of them or their mother leaving provision in her will. I know of a couple who ended up with more fertilised eggs than they could use (the success rate was higher than expected, and one egg split to produce identical twins (of triplets, as their mother was implanted with two eggs)). They donated excess fertilised eggs to others, because they didn't believe in killing innocent human life.
  • See BHarlan's answer.
  • In many places already men and women who smoke are restricted to only do so where their smoke will not endanger the health of others, and there's been talk here in Victoria of making it illegal for parents to smoke in cars with children. So I don't see a problem with this one.
  • I don't know enough about the medical risks with this one to comment.
Philip J. Rayment 21:27, 19 February 2009 (EST)
I'll agree with you and BHarlan that a flawed law in the right direction is better than no law at all. As to the questions I raised:
  • I find it interesting that you both find it acceptable to define a human being as a fertilized egg, and to claim that each of these lives deserves full respect and protection under the law, but that it's also okay to create multiple humans by fertilizing a set of eggs, and then playing the odds with those lives by implanting several in the hope that one or more "take". It would seem that if human life were so precious, we wouldn't condone fertility doctors playing God by creating life and then treating it in terms of batches and probabilities.
  • With the second point, then, should women only be allowed to create and store as many fertilized eggs as the number of children she plans on having? How long could she keep the state from adopting her fertilized eggs away to others because she's not sure she wants another child? When this law takes effect, is the state obligated to put all fertilized eggs under government control to prevent their destruction, or should doctors and patients be trusted?
  • I can't debate this point further - one either believes that a woman has a right to prevent a rape-fertilized egg from implanting in her womb, or that she doesn't.
  • I think the heroin point was a bit dramatic, while Philip's smoking-in-the-car analogy fit better.
  • After reading the comments on this last point, the thought that came to mind was what the threshold would be for deciding when a miscarriage is a natural, and when an autopsy would be required to see if prenatal negligence or abuse was at cause. The post-natal analogy would be crib death, but I hate to think of women who had gone through the heartbreak of several natural miscarriages then having to live under a cloud of criminal suspicion as well.
An interesting discussion, and I appreciate the comments. --DinsdaleP 23:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)

DinsdaleP, did you know that pregnancy is very risky for the baby? Between 30 and 70 percent of all embryos do not live to birth. This is a sort of hidden plague inside the hidden holocaust that is intentional abortion/infanticide. The number of people who die in the womb is enormous, and liberals, because they want to be free from the responsibility of raising children, deny the consequences. [7]

Abortions, both murderous and non-, are the greatest killer of man. We owe it to God and our children to spend more money and effort on preventing embryo loss, which is probably the leading cause of human suffering.

What do we spend money on instead? AIDS, an entirely preventable cause of death. But the Powers that Be have very potent lobbies, so no surprise there! BHarlan 00:49, 20 February 2009 (EST)

DinsdaleP: As BHarlan says, many naturally-implanted eggs die anyway, so how does it make it worse if an artificially-implanted one dies? How is that "playing the odds"? How is a doctor fertilising an egg "playing God by creating life" any different in that regard to a husband and wife doing exactly the same (albeit by a different method)?

Yes, people should not create embryos with the intention that they won't all be used. Do you think it's acceptable to kill unwanted humans? That is, are you claiming that it's okay to kill unwanted humans, or that they are not actually human? Because your argument does not seem to be that they are not human, but that it should be okay to kill them. I could understand if you said "I agree that if they are human, they should be protected, but I don't think they are human", but that is not what you are arguing.

The same point applies regarding rape: Do you really think it's okay to kill the innocent (baby) human which is the product of the rape? That is, does rape really justify murder? Or is your argument really that you don't consider it human? If so, that is what you should be arguing.

Philip J. Rayment 07:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The feedback is a appreciated, but I better make this my last comment on this thread to avoid 90/10 issues. Personally, I struggle with this one. A baby delivered naturally is a human beyond doubt. A baby taken out in the 7th month can survive with aggressive neonatal care, so while some would say that a child is not a human until it's born, the fact that some infants can survive with care even if they haven't fully developed first does not take away from their humanity. Is a fertilized egg a human, though? Is a blasocyst or zygote? Personally I don't think so, for reasons that would take too long to get into here. So if I don't think a fertilized egg is a human but a 3rd trimester fetus could be, when does the status change?
I honestly don't know.
That's why I never judge or come down on people who believe that human life begins at conception - it's a much more consistent position than mine, even if I don't agree with it. That's why my questions above are just that - sincere questions which I try to find answers for, and not anti-conservative snark to make a point. I'd like to continue the discussion off this page, so I'll set up a debate page in the near future for it. --DinsdaleP 20:35, 20 February 2009 (EST)
I also appreciate thoughtful comments, likes yours above, Dinsdale. Although I have to wonder if, in today's society and climate, if it is possible to hold a respectful and measured discussion on such a topic anymore....problematic, to say the least! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:50, 21 February 2009 (EST)
DinsdaleP, I understand what you are saying, and accept that you are undecided on this issue. Nevertheless, your questions do appear to assume that the unborn child is not human, else surely the answers to your questions, most of them at least, would be obvious. Take the rape question, for example. It's hard to think of a good analogy, but let's just suppose for the sake of argument that a woman was raped and in the process (it was exceptionally violent) she ended up in a coma. She didn't come out of the coma for nearly a year, by which time the product of the rape had been born. The now-conscious mother decides that she doesn't want the child for whatever reason (reminder of the rape, unable to support, etc.), so kills it. There are very few people (although there's probably some) who would consider that acceptable. But if the child was human from the moment of conception, how is killing the fertilised egg any more acceptable?
As for when one "becomes" human, I guess that it depends on your definition of "human". But as you indicate, there's no good reason to consider that humanity starts with birth. Further, there's no other point in time, other than conception, which makes any more sense. (Offered reasons include being able to survive on one's own, or feel pain, neither of which are convincing nor really determinable.) Clearly, from the point of view of DNA, one is human from conception. It's not a rose or a fish or a bird or an ape, but a human. As New Scientist was forced to admit:
The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.(quoted and referenced here)
Philip J. Rayment 02:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)
If we are to treat the life of the fetus and the mother as being equally deserving of protection, then what legal restrictions will that place on the medical options of the mother? Is the health, not the survival, of the mother trumped by the survival of the fetus? Can we deny a c-section to a woman until the chance of both mother and fetus surviving the procedure are equal? Consider a case in which a pregnant woman has cancer; will she be forced to delay chemotherapy until she has delivered her baby, or will there be a legal way to determine at what point chemotherapy is appropriate? If we knew for certain that a pregnant woman could carry a child to viability but would die in childbirth/during a C-section vs. a 99% chance of her surviving an abortion, would she be forced to continue the pregnancy and die (100% chance of one surviving vs. 99% chance of one surviving)? Can a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy in which the fetus has a fatal genetic disorder?--Brossa 11:04, 21 February 2009 (EST)


I think most mothers would put the life of their child before their own, but you make some good points. My concern is that most of these choices are intensely personal and often emotionally wrenching, and adding government intrusion is not always a good thing. I think of cases like the ones where parents have to decide which conjoined twin will live when it's certain that both cannot survive, but one could if separated. These are private matters that we have no right to judge people for, and the state (I hope) would not press charges for making a choice that deliberately leads to the death of one life to save at least one other. (Could a case for manslaughter be made because the parents chose not to let nature decide for them?) When you carry this premise backwards to prenatal situations, and the number of situations where government entities could make these choices for us, it gets scary. --DinsdaleP 11:49, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I've set up a new debate page for this topic at Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?. If anyone feels this thread should be copied over there, please feel free to do so. --DinsdaleP 10:06, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Darwin/Hitler Image

I have a serious problem with the image found on the main page of this website that is under the “Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin” title. I find this image of the two faces to be one of the most offensive things I have ever seen on this website, and there are a lot of offensive things on here. While there may be an argument in the Evolutionary Racism idea, by combining the picture of a scientist who developed a theory based on observation with that of a Fascist Dictator is just propaganda. Please, let’s grow up and stop sending hateful, distasteful, and downright offensive images to the world. Thank you. – Conservativedude.

I find quite a few things offensive here too, but that's not particularly one of them. Darwin's views were based more on ideology than observation (there certainly were observations, but they don't show goo-to-you evolution), and that ideology led pretty directly to Hitler's atrocities, as well as many other negative consequences. Philip J. Rayment 22:04, 19 February 2009 (EST)
Observations?---well let's try a historical observation: Hitler did not get his ideas from Darwin directly or indirectly. Best read Kershaw's monumental 2 volume bio of Hitler, which traces all his ideas.RJJensen 23:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)
How is something that didn't happen an "observation"? No, he didn't get them directly, but he did get them indirectly. See here and here. Philip J. Rayment 07:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Hitler did not use, know about or depend on any of Darwin's ideas. Hitler's notions of "evolution" in no way contradicted the Bible. RJJensen 10:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Sorry, but I don't give a lot of weight to mere assertions. Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
actually the Nazis banned Darwinism and its major books. Here's what historians have found:
"Thus, as many historians have stressed, the path from Darwin to Hitler was hardly a straight one. In Germany, as elsewhere, evolutionary theory provided a resource for groups with disparate agendas, including socialists and other radicals, free-market and collectivist-oriented liberals, Fascists, eugenicists who opposed racism and racial purists. Indeed, it was the variety of interests which Darwinism initially served in Germany that explains why the theory was so widely and enthusiastically embraced. The continuing association of evolutionism with progressive causes, especially anti-militarism, explains why in 1935 the Nazis ordered that the works of nearly all the popular Darwinists, including Haeckel, be purged from libraries". The Cambridge Companion to Darwin 2003. Page 234. Note that most free-market and libertarian ideas promoted on Conservapedia are much closer to Darwin than Hitler ever was. RJJensen 11:03, 20 February 2009 (EST)
The Nazis may have persecuted some other Darwinists, as Leftist cults always turn on and persecute their fellow leftists. But to claim that Nazism owed nothing to social Darwinism is a wilfully perverse conclusion. CedP 11:24, 20 February 2009 (EST)
claim that Nazism owed nothing to social Darwinism no one makes that claim. The Social Darwinists influenced the nazis as well as American conservatives like Milton Friedman (and me too, for that matter!) RJJensen 12:37, 20 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure what to make of your last point. You admit that Nazism was influence by the Social Darwinists, but the social Darwinists based their views on Darwin's. So isn't that an admission that Hitler was indirectly influenced by Darwin?
Further, your Cambridge quote indicates that there was a connection ("the path from Darwin to Hitler was hardly a straight one"), and also says that books about evolution were banned for reasons other than Hitler disagreeing with evolution, which makes that claim irrelevant to this discussion.
At best, what we have is some commentators saying that Hitler was influenced (indirectly) by Darwin, and other commentators saying that he wasn't. But here's some more.
Robert Clark said that Hitler
...was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas—quite undisguised—lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf...
R. Hickman said that Hitler
...was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.
B. Wilder-Smith said that
One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
(The above three quotes are taken from here.)
Sir Arthur Keith said that
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.[8]
Philip J. Rayment 03:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
"Social Darwinism" was the theory first proposed by Herbert Spencer, it influenced lots of people including Darwin, many Germans, and many libertarians. Reject it out of hand and you reject a great deal of conservatism--including people like Milton Friedman and Hayek. "Evolution" was a pretty widespread concept in the late 19th century. But what is the issue? That evolution contradicted the Bible? (in 1900 nearly all theologians, including almost all conservatives, said there was no contradiction.) The Nazis were evil? Yes indeed but people who believe in God can likewise be very evil. The Nazis hated the Jews. Indeed so, but that hatred did not depend on studying biology textbooks--the systematic massacre and expulsion of Jews goes back centuries before Darwin. (The English expelled the Jews in the year 1290. The Spanish expelled them in 1492, the same year they sent Christopher Columbus on his trip. Massive Russian pogroms were large scale in 1881-84.) Back to Hitler: no biographer finds him at all interested in evolution. The one-line quotes cited above are all from folks who never studied the new Hitler literature, and are not very credible. The bottom line is that excessive focus on Hitler weakens CP and may even weaken legitimite support for Christianity. RJJensen 09:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."[209] Secondly, re: "Yes indeed but people who believe in God can likewise be very evil". I think you need to address this information. Third, you never demonstrated the quotes above are rendered superfluous by the "new Hitler literature". conservative 22:14, 21 February 2009 (EST)
I checked each quote and none of them cites the modern scholarship. The authors seem to be biologists with little knowledge of history. Historians point out there are two kinds of "evolution." A) is the "monkey business" (to cite the Scopes trial), whether humans are descended from "monkeys" (as Darwin said) as opposed to Genesis. Hitler did not think so--he believed that God created separate races (a common idea pre-Darwin). B) is the evolution of human society--that notion in no way contradicts the Bible. Hitler largely followed Chamberlain in the 2nd theme, arguing that only the Aryans could actually advance mankind and that Jews always retarded Aryan advances. Chamberlain and most 19c racists relied NOT on biology but on very different historical arguments, and for them "race" was a matter mostly of language. ("Caucasian" for example, refers to 19c theories about the original language of the "white race" being in the Caucasian mountains. People talked of the "Celtic race" (the Irish) and the "Anglo-Saxon race" (English), using linguistics as the key.). In terms of "A"--the monkey business--Hitler was closer to the Creationists than the Darwinists. RJJensen 23:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)
I very much doubt that much of conservatism—or at least Christianity, which is what I'm more concerned with—owes much solely to social Darwinism.
I'm very sceptical that "nearly all" theologians said that there was no contradiction between the Bible and evolution. But that there is a contradiction is abundantly clear. The Bible unambiguously says that creation occurred over a period of six days, whereas evolution supposedly took many millions of years. That the Bible says this is easily understandable by a 10-year old, and by the world's professors of Hebrew and Old Testament. That there is a contradiction is recognised by many non-creationists, such as Richard Bozarth[9], Michael Ruse[10], and Stephen Jay Gould[11], William Provine[12], and Sir Julian Huxley[13].
Sure, others have also hated the Jews, but it was eugenics, based on Darwinism, that gave the Nazis the justification they needed to try and wipe them out.
"Back to Hitler: no biographer finds him at all interested in evolution.": Yet other researchers do.
"The one-line quotes cited above are all from folks who never studied the new Hitler literature, and are not very credible.", "I checked each quote and none of them cites the modern scholarship.": A bit of chronological snobbery there? And why are they not credible?
"The bottom line is that excessive focus on Hitler weakens CP and may even weaken legitimite support for Christianity.": That is a separate question than whether or not there is a connection, which is what I'm debating. You may be right on this particular point, but then how do we decide what is "excessive"?
"The authors seem to be biologists with little knowledge of history.": If they were historians and not biologists, then I guess that you could argue that they have little knowledge of evolution. And perhaps that's the point: not being biologists maybe they didn't recognise the connection between evolution and Hitler's views. And why would Sir Arthur Keith, a contemporary of Hitler, need to be a historian to make his observation?
"Hitler ... believed that God created separate races": Which God? Hitler was opposed to Christianity.
"Historians point out there are two kinds of "evolution." ... B) is the evolution of human society--that notion in no way contradicts the Bible.": Oh? Is that like your claim above that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible?
"In terms of "A"--the monkey business--Hitler was closer to the Creationists than the Darwinists.": Not according to the sources I've cited.
Philip J. Rayment 08:25, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Some points here. people living at the time (like Keith) relied on newspaper accounts of Hitler, which were manipulated by Goebbels and the Big Lie. Historians have access to all the secret letters and speeches and discussions thgat tell what Hitler really thought. You don't have to be a professional historian to use them, but you must read the history if you want to understand Hitler. Quoting a bunch of biologists who have not read the research studies makes for a poor encyclopedia. We now know that Hitler read a huge amount and after 1920 collected a large library; he annotated many of his books (they are now in the Library of Congress). Historians have worked through all the annotations--for a good idea see Ambrus Miskolczy, Hitler's Library‎ (2003), which is partly online and can be searched. In sum, Hitler was very familiar with current events, music (esp Wagner), architecture (pre-1900), world history, some German philosophy (esp Schopenhauer) and anything hostile to Jews. Hitler did not believe man had evolved from apes. He believed (as many people did in 1900) that God has created separate races and these races MUST remain distinct. God put the Aryans at the top and Jews at the bottom, and Jews ruined all the good work Aryans did, Hitler said. In a major speech in 1937 he said, "of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it....There is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognise the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." RJJensen 09:11, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Interesting, and thanks for the historical insights. But I think Hitler did believe in survival of the fittest, including by humans, and that is obviously deadly.
Also, let's not make the mistake of thinking that one person's personal view on an issue (in this case Hitler's) dictates an entire government. All of Hitler's leading scientists did believe in Darwinism, and a primary architect of the Holocaust (Josef Mengele) even got his Ph.D. in it. Hitler, by relying on him and granting him authority, is responsible for his views and actions.--Andy Schlafly 09:27, 22 February 2009 (EST)
RJJensen, you wrote "Hitler largely followed Chamberlain in the 2nd theme". I see you hiding behind words like "largely". The fact is that Hitler was a staunch believer in evolutionary racism based on biology. Hitler wrote: "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should MATE with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile." Last time I checked MATING involves biology. Secondly, I see your "modern scholarship" gambit as rather impotent. Logicians certain have what is known at the appeal to novelty fallacy. Certainly newer is not necessarily truer. The fact is that scholarship is not always evidentialy based but can be based merely on the zeitgeist ("spirit of the age"). For example, modern scholarship at one point in time said that there was not writing at the time of Moses and they did this based on mere speculation and the "spirit of that age" (which happened to be based on anti-supernatural evolutionary bunk).[14] Now if you can clearly show that Hitler and his henchman were probably not evolutionary racist in a biological sense and you can base on evidence you present then that is well and good. However, mere appeals to "modern scholarship" are not compelling. conservative 10:14, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Conservative, firstly yes mating involves Biology. But Hitler's views are not based on (his) contemporary biology merely because they involved mating. "I believe that God doesn't exist because Dogs can't breed with caterpillars" - is that statement based on biology? Secondly, claiming that modern biology may just represent the spirit of the age is relativism. That logic can equally apply to your views, that may just as well be representative of the spirit of an age. Thirdly, modern scholarship is better. Arguments are made on the basis of a more thorough investigation of evidence, and more evidence is obtainable. It's not unknown for an earlier scholar to be rejected and then later vindicated, but these are rare exceptions and normally don't involve major issues. Good arguments are made on the basis of modern knowledge. JHanson 10:43, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Andy is correct in pointing out that a lot of Nazis believed in the descent of man from apes (what I refer to as version A evolution). But Hitler did not believe that--he thought God created separate races. As for "survival of the fittest" that is what I called version B evolution ("social Darwinism"--due to Herbert Spencer not Darwin, even though other people later tagged it with Darwin's name). Version B does not contradict the Bible and is irrelevant to creationism. Version B does indeed have a lot of political implications--many, many different people were influenced by it--including Naziism AND including much of American conservatism, especially the libertarians like Hayek and Friedman. But back to my basic point: Hitler was an evil racist of the non-Darwinian variety (that is Hitler said race= culture/language/heritage). Hitler=Darwin is false history and that makes for a bad encyclopedia.RJJensen 11:02, 22 February 2009 (EST)
RJJensen, you wrote: "But Hitler did not believe that--he thought God created separate races." I think you need to provide evidence of this assertion. Secondly, did Hitler believe in theistic evolution (God supposedly guiding the supposed natural process of macroevolution ) when it came to the origin of the human race(s) and can you provide evidence to such an assertion? Lastly, I didn't see you adequately respond to my MATING related post above. Certainly, my MATING related post would involve Hitler promoting evolutionary racism which involved biology. conservative 12:54, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Well mankind did not wait for Darwin to learn about mating--you did not even have to take a biology course in those days. Hitler strongly opposed mating between Aryans and Jews. When he talked about the origin of races he said that God created them separately ("polygenesis") -- see the Hitler quote highlighted above from 1937. Polygenesis was held by many people (Voltaire for example), but I think every biologist of every camp had discarded the notion by the 1930s. But Nazis did not tell Hitler he was wrong. Hitler's interest in science and technology was very limited. The evidence shows that before 1939 he was interested in automobiles and architecture, but not other areas of science & technology; during the war, he talked to jet and rocket scientists about new weapons like jet planes, V-1, V-2. Historians have used thousands of pages of transcripts of his conversations and he did not mention Darwin/biology/evolution. - post made by RJJensen
RJJensen, "David Hackett Fischer is a professor of history at Brandeis University. He is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. Fischer is especially well known among historians and the lay public in regards to approaching historiography for his work Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought."[15] RJJensen, one of the things that Fischer states in the aforementioned book is that his fellow historians are often quite illogical. With that being said, although you have training in the discipline of history like your fellow historians, until you provide me with statements of Hitler and also sources for your assertions, I see no reason to take carte blanche what you assert. Because you may be one of the many illogical historians that Fischer complains about. Furthermore, Fischer states that negative evidence is not evidence at all. In other words, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So even if your "Darwin/biology/evolution" statement was true about Hitler it certainly would not be decisive. However, with that being said, Hitler certainly did certainly believe in evolutionary racism in the biological sense and there certainly is evidence of it besides the MATING passage I cited. In his work Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and decried Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," which Hitler stated resulted in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards."[16] Adolf Hitler also wrote the following evolutionary racist statement in Mein Kampf: "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.[17] RJJensen, you can run from the "higher organic higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable" statement all you want, but that certainly will not make it go away and it clearly shows the biological component of Hitler's evolutionary racism. conservative 15:09, 22 February 2009 (EST)
David Fischer has been a personal friend of mine for 30 years and I'm happy to discuss these matters as a professional historian. Let's see what is your evidence that Hitler was interested in darwin? There is no evidence he ever read or mentrioned Darwin. Hitler's racism came primarily from Gobineau which was pre-Darwin and did not reject the Bible. The issue here is a confusion with two different ideas. Actually Hitler agreed with the creationists on God's creation of man, as the 1937 quote demonstrates. The condfusion arises from some biologists who did not have access to Hitler's ideas.

RJJensen, let me see if I have this straight.

Thanks to Haeckel and others, Germany became soaked in evolutionary thinking, so that it was "widely and enthusiastically embraced". Further, evolution was so widely accepted that nearly all theologians apparently adopted it (inferred from the claim that they saw no conflict between it and the Bible). People like Goebbels apparently accepted evolution, because they spread the word to the media giving the allegedly-false impression that Hitler's ideas were based on evolution. In any case, "a lot of Nazis" believed in evolution. Hitler read "a huge amount" and was "very familiar with current events", world history, and some philosophy. Hitler was opposed to Christianity and wanted it destroyed. Yet somehow, despite all this, Hitler did not even "know about" (my emphasis) Darwin's ideas, let alone be influenced by them. Despite the culture he lived in being soaked in evolutionary thinking and a lot of his own party accepting it, he managed to avoid being influenced by such, and actually believed in some unknown (non-Christian) creator (which somehow makes him more like Christian creationists). Further, he must have been a much nicer bloke than history portrays him, because the evolutionary-based eugenics programs used as justification for killing all those Jews were not accepted by him. And he was obviously not really in control of the Nazi Party, given that they put out all this false propaganda about him. No, he was a good, god-fearing, bloke who has been misunderstood by history. Including those modern historians who still consider him "an evil racist".

Have I got that right?

Philip J. Rayment 21:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Look there are two very different kinds of "evolution". A = Darwin and rejects the Bible. B= Spencer = evolution and change in society and is involved in many different ideas, right and left, then and today. It is not connected to the Bible. CP can't reject and ridicule B without rejecting most modern conservatism. As for Hitler, he totally igored or rejected A. Hitler's racism depended on pre-Darwinian and anti-Darwinian ideas of race pushed by Chamberlain (who was intensely hostile to Darwin). Darwin-A had zero to do with Hitler's hatred of the Jews. (Spencer-B does have some overlap with Nazi rhetoric about survival of the fittest and eugenics.) Hitler had very little or zero interest in or knowledge about biology or Darwinian-A evolution. Note that Hitler and the creationists agree on God's special role in creating mankind. I think that creationists want to say that Darwin-A was wrong because it undercuts the Bible. Therefore some creationists try to say Darwin-A is evil because Hitler resulted from it and Hitler was evil. That's the fallacy--Hitler never supported Darwin-A and instead thought God created man specially. (I think William Jennings Bryan started the mix-up in the 1920s.) RJJensen 22:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)
RJJensen, the 1937 could easily have been written by a theistic evolutionist. You are forgetting or choosing not to employ these principles of Fischer for evaluating historical evidence: "The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from." and "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."[18] conservative 22:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)
PJR, keep up the good work!!!! conservative 22:46, 22 February 2009 (EST)

--₮K/Admin/Talk 00:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The man has a point. ETrundel 09:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Two things. First, Godwin's Law. By invoking Hitler, we more or less send the message "We have absolutely no reasonable arguments," even though a person could easily look and find dozens of logical refutations. Second, let's consider a different example: Throughout history, people have done horrible things "because it was God's will". Does that mean God is an avid supporter of genocide and murder? No. It simply means these people do not truly follow His will. I do not believe in evolution, but I do believe in science, and if you want my community to listen, stop linking Darwin to Hitler and start providing meaningful facts. --T2master 13:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Obama and Fairness Doctrine

Today's comment on the Fairness Doctrine is particularly egregious because it implies that President Obama won the election campaigning on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. On the contrary, last summer his spokesman Michael Ortiz said:

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 13, 2008

One could say that it may be that Obama secretly harbored a wish to restore that regulatory policy, but to state or imply that it is something he said he would do is factually incorrect. --TonySidaway 07:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Tony, the headline is supported by the article it links to, and Obama's recent statement doesn't fool anyone here. The second sentence in your quote even confirms the obvious: Obama's team is going to try to censor popular talk radio under the guise of having "as many diverse viewpoints as possible." Also, by the way, "summer" is spelled with an "e", not an "a".
Perhaps Tony won't admit how atheists censor any criticism of evolution on Wikipedia and in government schools. But censorship of opponents is the sine qua non of atheism.--Andy Schlafly 11:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)
The source does not support the implication, on the main page of Conservapedia, that Obama made such promises. Please correct your copy. --TonySidaway 12:39, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Tony, we know how atheists love to censor everything from classroom prayer to criticism of evolution. Just look at Wikipedia entries on the related topics. You won't admit that atheists censor, but you're not going to censor anything here. I've strengthened the headline per your information. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 20 February 2009 (EST)
Well I certainly disagree with both of you! The fact of the matter, as my news item said, was that Obama allowed his surrogates, Pelosi and Reid, and a dozen others, to call for the reinstatement, for over a year during the campaign. His now saying he is against it, is deceit and others, like Tony saying "prove he was for it" is nothing but wiki lawyering. The FACT he allowed his surrogates to pander to the leftists, (and all surrogates are tightly controlled, and often used for Red Herrings and Trial Balloons) was his trying to have his cake and eat it to. The item, as it now reads is accurate, as far as it goes, however. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:32, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The origins of life

Gentlement, atheist scientists in Montreal have apparently "proved" that chemicals can "just form" to produce complex molucular components of life such as Ribosomes. I think these claims are somewhat outrageous and to be quite frank, stupid. I find this article vastly contradictory ("The ribosome simply wouldn't hold together if it were constructed any other way." - which is indeed a pointer towards intelligent design) and there is a massive lack of any links to evidence or any data at all. GFasten 10:18, 21 February 2009 (EST)

With the lack of references in the article, it is not even certain that any experiment has been done! And the first sentence says that the 'researchers' have only proposed a theory - not proved or shown anything. A theory can be proposed without any evidence at all, and the article does not show any evidence in support of the theory. User:FJohn

Pravda article

It doesn't exist. A search for that article title on Pravda returns: "Ничего не найдено, попробуйте переформулировать запрос!", which means "article not found". The article is listed in the related results and it is on, which is, of course, not Pravda. In addition, the article is not on Conservapedia, it just mentions Conservapedia for a couple paragraphs more than halfway through. Far be it from me to say that the article proves nothing, but I can certainly say that it's not on Pravda. Just pointing this out.--सफ़ेद-बाघ 14:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, Pravda and Pravmir are completely different, despite the similarity of the names. Pravda is a website run by former employees of the defunct state-run Soviet newspaper of the same name, and Pravmir, "Orthodoxy and the World", is a website apparently maintained for religious outreach purposes by the Russian Orthodox parish of Всемилостивого Спаса (transliterated by Google as Vsemilostivogo Spasa). This blatant error should be corrected. --TonySidaway 10:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)