Talk:Main Page/archive 99

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Dan Peek

So Dan Peek, a Christian "rock star", made it to age 60 before shuffling off this mortal coil. Tuli Kupferberg of The Fugs only went out at 86, and Keith Richards is 67 and still going strong. None of the "church-avoiding rock stars who died in their 20s" had any hand in anything one-tenth as bad as "A Horse With No Name". I think you'd have done better to let this death pass in silence.

ELWisty 00:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)ELWisty

A little clarification please?

I find this site very informative but I have to ask one question that struck me as odd. How is it that wikipedia is biased? I used that site for years without seeing it being biased. So if you could be so kind as to explain to me how it is, it will let me stop wondering.

You can see examples in Bias in Wikipedia. Or simply view its entry about Conservapedia.--Andy Schlafly 10:03, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Jennifer Lopez/Marc Anthony Divorce

It's a shame that their children will suffer, and it's certainly yet another example of Hollywood values to add to the mountain of similar examples, but I have to question whether it merits mention on Conservapedia's front page. It makes the front page look a little more like a supermarket tabloid and a little less like a serious news digest. News items dealing with the future of our country shouldn't get pushed down the front page by a story about the moral failings of a pair of Hollywood celebs. There; I got that off my chest.--Bwebster 22:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

I think a list of these divorces could be compiled in a specific section somewhere, maybe inside the Hollywood values section. BFleming

Obama birthday party

I think this can be on main page right. Obama will throw a party for his 50th birthday. Tickets for the event can cost more than $35,000 per couople. But even the $10,000 per person tickets include a souvenir photo with the president. What a deal! But really, this is aa prime example of Obama egocentricity. Here is a link with the story, but I'm sure that other news corporations are picking this too. [1] --AlejandroH 02:56, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

You... do realize A birthday is ALL about being egocentric, right?--SeanS 15:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
The party is a political fundraiser, so there's no more egocentricity here than there is with any other politician. Not really a story. WilliamB1 15:43, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Atlanta School Scandal

I'm not sure if you've seen reports on this - absolutely shocking! [2] "nearly two hundred teachers and high-level school officials doctored and falsified standardized tests in order to create the impression of teacher competence and student proficiency" TracyS 07:20, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

We've had several headlines about that already. It's good to see that the lamestream media are finally covering the story.--Andy Schlafly 17:13, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

"Bachmann stands for 'all things righteous.'"

I'm uncomfortable with that statement. Christ is the only human who lived that stands for "all things righteous." Bachmann stands for some things righteous, but no human stands for all things righteous. --FergusE 01:51, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Cut, Cap and Balance

Hi, I started a page for Cut, Cap and Balance and would appreciate any help. Thanks. User:MorrisF

I added additional information about the Act. Thanks for starting the page. Cheers. --MarkN85 12:16, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


I'm new here so I hope this is the right place to post this question. The Scotland page is protected but it's way out of date (e.g. info about the government). I'm happy to update it if the page could be unprotected. Thanks. HollyS 18:28, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Anyone out there...? Eager new editor speaking... HollyS 16:50, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

A similar request was made on the article's talk page back in March. No response. WilliamB1 17:25, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
Just unlocked it for you. Sorry for the delay!--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Baseball and Christian selflessness...

Amid all the bad news, it's nice to see a young person setting a good example now and then. Baseball may have suffered from scandals and the culture of liberal permissiveness, but every once in a while we're reminded of why it's the great American pastime. Kudos to this young man's parents for bringing him up right.

--Benp 18:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Took a look through the article, then did a Search of it for key terms. Saw NO mention of him being a christian or raised that way. Read the article before commenting on it.--SeanS 15:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

"Was Obama's mama denied treatment? No one challenged the president's sob story for fear of being called racist. "

As much as I disagree with Obama, I think that statement is a little to harsh. The tone of it mocks Obama's mother's illness. I don't think we should stoop down to the level of liberals by mocking one's fatal battle with cancer, even if Obama lied about it. I don't think anyone at the time would have wanted to challenged his story; they would have no reason to suspect he was lying at the time. I would suggest changing "mama" to "mother" and take out the word "sob." I've known people who've battled with cancer and it's not quite proper to mock it, even if we don't like them or they lied. BobSherman 18:57, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

New York heat wave and first day of gay marriage

Is it a coincidence that one of the hottest days in New York is also the same day that gays are now able to marry. Maybe this is God's way of giving these heathens a glimpse of what hell is like. Hopefully these perverted miscreants will get the message ... for their own good.

BTW, before any liberal blames this heat wave on global warming, do note that the last record was set in the 1930s! HP 19:30, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Honestly it should have been called "climate change". Global Warming allows the uneducated to say "its hot outside, it must be global warming" or "Its cold outside, wheres your global warming now?" without actually understanding the difference between climate and weather.--Jab512 12:57, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Obama says Boehner left him at altar. Gay marriage agenda?

[3] HP 19:40, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

no.--SeanS 10:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
No straight man would say another man left him at the altar. Just saying. HP 19:48, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
So Obama is gay now too? --Jab512 12:51, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Sea monster

Unless I'm mistaken it's not April Fools' Day, so why does the news section contain a story about a 'dinosaur in Alaska' which is written as if it's serious? WilliamB1 20:29, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

As Isaac Newton emphasized, knowledge comes from humility about how much is not known, rather than from an intellectual arrogance.--Andy Schlafly 00:58, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Look up the King of herrings, which is a possible candidate for this case of mistaken identity. A picture can be found on this site where quite a few SEALs are holding it up. [4][5]--Harrymd 01:41, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Blaming fundamentalist Christianity

While I've seen a few stories pointing out that the suspected killer possibly self-identified as a Chrisitian and a conservative, I have not seen a "rush" of stories blaming Christianity as a religion. Could you provide some examples? Lewis 11:34, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Type in "Norway Christian" in a search engine. The lamestream media are going bananas, despite a lack of evidence of regular church attendance or Bible-reading.--Andy Schlafly 12:18, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Do you not then see the irony in criticising those who blame fundamentalist Christianity or conservatism without evidence on the one hand, and then blaming 'violent video games' yourself? Any idea on any end of the political spectrum, or any religious belief can be taken to the extreme by certain individuals, as we have seen all too often throughout human history. WilliamB1 12:25, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I did a Google search for "Norway Christian" and got a lot of hits on the history of Christianity in Norway and a few "Chrisitan singles" sites and one blog post about the killings, but didn't notice, on the first 3-4 pages of the search results, any stories from ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT/NPR/BBC, etc. directly blaming Christianity. Can you show me where you saw this "rush" of stories? Lewis 12:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I agree, William. From the sources, the evidence that he played violent video games is no stronger than the evidence (or lack thereof) that he was a Christian. Andy jumped the gun in trying to blame video games, much like liberals did in trying to blame Christianity. Nobody is perfect. BradB 12:33, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I looked at the source given, and used a search of terms and... no video game mention at all O.o--SeanS 13:25, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
This is beyond just poor logic now, this is downright sickening. Mr Schlafly, you have just made a post on mainpageleft using the mass murder of innocent men, women and children to promote this site and your own views. You are repeatedly ignoring the evidence that the alleged shooter held extreme right-wing views on a number of matters, and instead focusing on video games. "Game addiction is a symptom of something wrong and not a cause." [6][7]. Even if you believed they were, how do you explain the targets selected by the shooter? Stop using an atrocity to promote your own views and your own website. It is absolutely sickening.
Agree with WillamB1. Using this event to try to promote a political agenda is pretty sickening. Especially considering that on the mainpage Schlafly is blasting the mainstream media for labeling this guy a fundamentalist Christian "perhaps hoping to influence politics elsewhere with that bizarre spin". --MatthewQ 14:10, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
What is "sickening" is how violent video games lead to the slaughter of innocent people, again and again. Regardless of what the killer believed, it takes training by violent video games to massacre so many victims. What would anyone object to a comment pointing that out?--Andy Schlafly 14:39, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
People on the left use the exact same reasoning to promote gun control right after a massacre happens. Do you think it's okay for them to do that? --MatthewQ 15:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

I would still like to see some of the "rush" of media stories from major outlets that are explicitly blaming Christianity for the tragedy. Lewis 14:16, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Do you know how to search news stories on the internet???--Andy Schlafly 14:39, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
As mentioned above, i have. Like I said, some reports have mentioned the suspect's self-identification, but I can find none that explicitly link the crime to Christian doctrine. Which stories have you read that do so? Lewis 14:59, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Lewis, no mainstream media outlet actually blames Christianity for the massacre. I have to agree with everyone else. As a conservative Christian who enjoys Modern Warefare 2, I find this kind of "reporting" disturbing. BradB 15:03, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
", it takes training by violent video games" A video game doesn't teach you how to hold a real Gun, how to fire it, how to aim properly, how to deal with recoil. How to reload, or anything else. Unless you would like to argue that I can use my Xbox360 Controller to control a gun. --SeanS 15:06, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) It took me less than 60 seconds, and only two clicks, to find the headline "Norway suspect 'fundamentalist Christian'" in one of the largest newspapers in Australia. [8]
....which is reporting on the suspect's self-identification. there is a difference between reporting that fact and framing Christianity as a motivating factor, which might involve looking at Christian doctrine and drawing a line between that and the crime. Do you see the difference? Lewis 15:13, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
So is reporting the fact that the 9/11 attackers were Muslim an attack on Islam? --MatthewQ 15:16, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) It took me less than 60 seconds to read that article, and it isn't blaming fundamentalist Christianity anywhere, it just list the information they found on his facebook. It even goes out of its way to state ""He has certain political traits that lean to the right and are anti-Muslim but it is too early to say if that was the motive for his actions," police commissioner Sevinung Sponheim told public television NRK on Saturday.". Also, isn't it kind of odd that you are searching these articles after you made the claim?

The link to the IB Times also says he liked hunting; I would guess that was where he learned and practiced using a weapon. Time to ban hunting? EricAlstrom 15:16, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, the idea that any video game could teach you how to kill people is ludicrous. I played Gran Turismo a while ago...I still can't drive a car, let alone race one. What the heck, if we're going to make ridiculous leaps in our reasoning, let's go all the way; I played a Star Wars game, but my lightsabre skills are pretty poor, and do you know what? I still can't jump 50 feet through the air or move objects using the 'force'. As others have said, don't you think hunting, where you actually use a real gun to actually kill real living creatures is somewhat more likely to offer better 'training' as you describe it? An unhealthy obsession with any particular video game is a symptom of an underlying problem, not the cause of the problem itself. In all the cases where a mass murderer has played such games, don't you think the more telling link is that they have all had underlying psychological issues, rather than that they have at some point happened to play Modern Warfare 2 or something like that?
The very fact that you link to your own article and that you have been involved in lawsuits regarding computer games reveals that you are pushing your own agenda here, and you are doing it in a rather unsubtle, and tactless manner. "this is perhaps the most flagrant case of anti-game crusaders using a tragedy to promote their own personal causes....."It's so sad. These massacre chasers — they're worse than ambulance chasers — they're waiting for these things to happen so they can jump on their soapbox"" WilliamB1 15:34, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

It is not only in appalling taste but simply incorrect to make the video game connection to the Norway tragedy. The accused was a hunter, so it's obvious he learned to use a gun that way rather than via video games. Anyway, I refuse to speculate motives on an unfolding story like this, and simply pray for the innocent victims. JanW 17:17, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

As an encyclopedia, it is our job to document facts, even if they are distasteful. We do not censor. It is probably true that he mostly learned how to use a gun from hunting, but how did he learn to kill? There is a very large difference between killing an animal and killing a human being. And a large part of why we emphasize on the Video game thing is because it is a fact that he played video games, and the media tries to downplay that. NickP 17:20, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
It seems he was a Mason, a member of the Knights Templar, and was pictured dressed as a commando. A frightening image, no doubt. JanW 17:23, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Response to many comments above:

  • there's no evidence the murderer attended church or read the Bible regularly. "Self-identification" is often inadequate when evidence doesn't support it.
  • violent video games do train people to perform killing sprees with astounding efficiency, improving the skills of players
  • violent video games also desensitize players to killing humans, unlike hunting, and militaries use them for that purpose
  • headlines are obviously what count most, regardless of what the fine print says, and the lamestream media are running headlines trying to blame Christianity

--Andy Schlafly 17:47, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Here you have a young adult in Norway sitting on his behind playing a violent video game for hours on end, and it's not teaching him anything? It's not teaching him how to kill? What did Jesus say about "thou shalt not kill?" How about this:

For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, `Thou shalt not kill,' and `Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.' But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, `Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire.' (Matt. 5:20-22)

How many people who called themselves Christian and did the above are roasting in hell right now? Quite a lot.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10) This includes anyone who chooses to kill. Karajou 18:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I think it's terrible that the mainstream media is blaming fundamentalist Christianity. It just shows how far the blatantly liberal-biased institution is and how willing it is to obfuscate the truth. It's been proven time and time again that playing these violent video games causes such atrocities. Don't say "you can't really learn to wield a gun through video games." They are pretty realistic nowadays. BobSherman 18:23, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm personally inclined to agree with you, but the Supreme Court - and even the Justices most associated with family values - say that there is no evidence at all that proves it, giving the old "causation does not show correlation" argument[9]. Whatever you think, it's certainly very hard to say it's true with any certainty. But as a mother, I think I know what's what. JanW 18:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Some ask, Who Added "Christian" and "Conservative" to Norway Shooter's Facebook Page Yesterday?

See also say he may may also been pro homosexual based on one line here?­anslate?sl­=auto&tl=e­n&u=http%3­A%2F%2Feks­trabladet.­dk%2Fminsa­g%2Farticl­e1590881.e­ce Daniel1212 21:25, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Great tip. I posted your first link (your second one didn't seem to work).--Andy Schlafly 21:47, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I cannot adequately put into words how appalling I find the behaviour of this site's owner. Mr Schlafly, your hypocrisy is astounding, your 'reasoning' even worse. Your conclusions were formed before the act was even committed (as you have proved with the article of yours you link to), you have cherry-picked those pieces of 'evidence' that fit your pre-formed notions, blown them out of proportion, while ignoring any thing that you perceive to go against your own views. You have based your arguments on assumptions that are at best dubious and at worse outright false, you are using the deaths of innocent people as a means to further your own agenda (anti-'liberal', anti-mainstream media, anti-video game, and even I see now, anti-homosexual). You seem to be revelling in this atrocity; where others mourn, you see an opportunity, an opportunity for self-promotion, for you, your site, and your agenda. While others weep you're shouting 'look at me', 'visit my website'; you have literally used this attack in a tagline for this site - "Conservapedia: a window to the future". Give your ego a rest; give empathy a try. Get down of the soapbox you had set up for just such an occasion, stop voicing every perverse and twisted notion that comes into your head, and try showing something that vaguely resembles humanity.
Needless to say, I have no desire to play any further part on this site. WilliamB1 22:12, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Tragedies continue to recur until they are understood and prevented. A candid discussion of the facts -- without the liberal distortions imposed by the lamestream media -- is essential to prevent recurrence of these murderous rampages by young men trained by violent video games.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Our thoughts and prayers should be with the families and friends of the victims at this time. It is a horrible tragedy. --Hsmom 23:12, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Good suggestion ... and our efforts should be to understand and prevent the recurrence of such a needless loss of life.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

The man's lawyer has stated his client will explain his reasoning on Monday in court. Until we hear from him directly, it's hearsay and not to be overly trusted. Terrible tragedies like this one always have a lot of misinformation surrounding them during the time period immediately afterward. Once things calm down a bit, then the truth will be found out. SharonW 01:37, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Bah, I'm sure the 92 people killed would have just turned out to be pinko socialists anyway. TerryB 01:51, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
An explanation for the 2 different profiles is that.
Both screenshots are accurate/genuine. The first screenshot was take by someone not logged in to Facebook. Note the lack of location and career bar. Those details were hidden from non-users. The second screenshot showed information such as location, education and notable philosophy because the person viewing the profile was logged into Facebook. Privacy settings allowed this person to view this information. [10]
The protest is against the use of this by a certain class to paint conservative Christians are dangerous, esp Christian fundamentalists, which paradoxically means just the opposite that it does in Islam, as the N.T. fundamentally is against what this man did.
I am not sure how much a part of the church this was, if any, or what kind of church it was. But those who assert that the terrorist was acting consistent with the Bible are potentially as dangerous as he is.
While religious violence was sanctioned for Israel in a limited context, under the New Testament the Bible does not offer any sanction for physical religious violence, such as,
  • 1. Christians killing others due to their contrary views.
  • 2. the church using violence in correcting false beliefs among church members
  • 3. the church exercising such to rule over those without
  • 4. the church exercising such to expand the physical territory of the church
A possible exception might be in order to save others from being hurt in an immediate situation, but that is hardly a religious context. And historically, rather than religious violence, many Christian Evangelica­l "fundamenta­list" groups have chosen to be complete pacifists.
The early church and its individuals in the New Testament, being under the New Covenant (which Jesus instituted at His death), never used violence. Rather, "we do not war after the flesh, For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal," "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against..spiritual wickedness.." (2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) Thus "the weapons of our warfare" spiritual, "By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.." (2Cor. 6:7) While the Crusades are often invoked as an example of church instituted and promoted killing, that was the result of men assuming superior authority over Scripture, along with ignorance of the latter among the laity.
The N.T. does sanction the just use of the sword by the civil government, (Rm. 13:1-7) and while that is based upon moral views in any country, yet the N.T. itself separates the powers. (Mt. 22:21; Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:12)
In contrast, while As Jesus kingdom is not of this world, and hence His subjects do not use the sword in order to expand it, the Qur'an makes not such distinction and does promote religious violence. ( Its mundane monologue of theology lacks the context and clarity needed to restrict what "war" against Islam is, and its exhortations to religious violence to simply being in a defensive context, while physical retaliation and fighting is clearly sanctioned and commanded, such as until all the religion of the land be of Allah. (Qur’an:8:39)
As for the atheists who love to lump all religions together as blood thirsty, know that more killing and oppression has been done under the recent rise of atheism than by religion during this period, from Mao to PolPot to Communism, as its objectively baseless moral reasoning can easily sanction anything as reasonable to achieve its ends. And liberalism's disciples have exampled their willingness to use violence as well. [11] [12]) Daniel1212 08:05, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
By Andy's twisted logic, there is no evidence that the guy ever played MW2, just like there's no evidence that he went to church. By Andy's twisted logic, by listing it on facebook, the guy was just as "addicted" to Christianity as he was to MW2. By Andy's twisted logic, an anti-gun liberal could have put MW2 as one of his favorite games, just like an anti-Christian liberal could have put Christianity as his religion. Andy, you're making a fool of yourself. You clearly drew your conclusions before you had the facts. Open your mind and divest yourself of your intellectual arrogance for your sake and for Conservapedia's. BradB 14:34, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Natural for liberals to immediately jump to the attack card. Why can't we just have a civil discussion of this?
Anyways, Billions of people claim to practice Christianity, yet not quite as many truly follow to the principles of Jesus. Just because he said he was a Christian doesn't mean he really was. However, the same cannot really be said about Video games. NickP 16:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Clearly, the shooter was suffering from a mental illness, which is a liberal trait. Furthermore, as this essay points out, if the murderer were a Christian, he would have been mentally healthy and would not have done this. --FergusE 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
It seems that even the lamestream media has caught onto the link between the shooting and video games at this point. The psychopath personally stated that he used violent video games as a "simulator" for killing innocents. --AlexPreston 13.11, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Andrew Burwick manifesto

From the 1,518-page manifesto and handbook of Andrew Burwick, A European Declaration of Independence, [13] [14], confirmed p.1405, and 1361 (2nd question)

Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam.

The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury's speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.

I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East.

Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;

- That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity -Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reasonis the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian "culturalist" military order.

It is said that he had ranked (considered) his possible arrest as a ‘transition to the propaganda phase,’ and on Monday he will present his motive to the court himself. He also wants the session to be public.
The man is not a Christian by Biblical criteria, and is certainly not an evangelical (as if they could be separate), but he wants the benefits of its culture without submitting to its Christ. Likewise liberalism want the Garden of Eden without its God, and before the fall and the necessity of clothes and moral codes and things like spanking and sometimes war. By liberal and atheistic reasoning Burwick may be Christian, which reasoning they also make Hitler one, but they disallows Mao or Pol Pot from being atheists, while in reality this Norwegian's rejection of the Bible as his supreme authority, or any other religious one, and his reliance upon his own reasoning as supreme, is one shared with atheism.
And while some of his protests may have some merit, and it gained him attention, it is actually counterproductive to whatever noble goals he might have had. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Prv. 14:12) Daniel1212 19:14, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
BTW, the link in which he seems to express support for homosexual rights is, but now it says "translated), "This case can not currently be displayed, because our moderators have rated it violates the nation's rules."
Q: Hobbies and interests?
A: Friends, fitness (weightlifting and spinning), snowboarding, opera, theatre, art

exhibitions, antiquities, MMOs, science fiction, Freemasons, European architecture, European history, European art in general, genealogy, heraldry, political/stock/currency/commodity analysis, travelling - learning about different cultures.

Annual grouse hunting trip, Oslo Pistol Club, Norwegian Masonic Greater Lounge.

I took a year off when I was 25 and played WoW PvE hardcore for a year....I’m currently playing Modern Warfare 2 casually. (p. 1408)

If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past...
I highly recommend that you, prior to the operation, visit a Church and perform the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord’s Supper ). As we know, this ritual represents the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion. You should also solve any issues you might have with God and ask for forgiveness for past sins. Finally, ask him to prepare for the arrival of a martyr for the Church.
Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders The PCCTS, Knights Templars are Destroyers of Marxism and Defenders of Christendom. We are Crusaders, martyrs of the Church, selfless defenders of the weak and the blind. We our not only automatically granted access to heaven in light of our selfless acts; our good deeds and final sacrifice will be added to the divine storehouse of merit and will therefore help other less virtuos individuals...
I usually refer to Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity. As long as you ask forgiveness before you die you can literally live a life as the most despicable character imaginable.
When a Justiciar Knight martyrs himself for the cause he walks down a path well knowing what is likely to await him. He chooses this path of sacrifice, not for his own self serving needs, but for his family, friends, his people, his culture, his nation and for the preservation of Christendom. As such, he is sacrificing the most divine gift, life itself, in service of others and in service of God.
A Justiciar Knight who martyrs himself for the cause, and/or self terminates during or after an operation for tactical reasons, should be celebrated as martyrs for the Church. It is expected that the Catholic Church and other denominations of Church authorities in Europe (and independent canon law experts) acknowledges our sacrifices and defines our deeds as acts of martyrdom for the Church, according to canon law. The Church should not have second thoughts on the matter as they are fully aware of the fact that European Christendom is gradually being deconstructed.
It is time that the Pope and his cardinals begin to resist the deliberate deconstruction of European Christendom. pp. 1345,46,48
The man was critically of wrong faith, and born in the wrong century. So much for texts such as “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)Daniel1212 05:37, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

He also states

“I don’t think I’ve consumed this much alcohol for many years, totally awesome." Ibid. p. 1415

"Pope Benedict has abandoned Christianity and all Christian Europeans and is to be considered a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt and illegitimate Pope much like his most recent predecessors; John XXIII (1958-1963), Paul VI (1963-1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978-2005). If Pope Benedict had any shred of integrity he would at least attempt to contact all European senior and junior military officers and ask them to inintialise coups against the given multiculturalist European regimes and contribute to repell Islam from Europe for a third time."

P. 1327 From there until 1334 he wrests O.T. and N.T. Scriptures to justify his jihad. But his problem is not his overall complaint, but his method for bringing change, as God's ways (and message) are higher than his. Daniel1212 19:15, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

All of this is great and interesting, I just don't understand how it relates to a Main Page article discussion. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere? Thank you. Rob Smith 19:50, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Assistance please?

I just made the page Rodger W. Young. I have mostly the information done, but I would like some people to proof read it because I did it in one sitting and I couldn't fix my cites because I guess I was temporarily blocked?--Harrymd 13:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT) -

I don't see the block in the log. The aticle needs a category. I'll try to get help. Rob Smith 21:48, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I believe it was when editing was turned off he was referring to.--JamesWilson 21:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Hi - Conservapedia admin RobSmith asked me to have a look at the article for you. I've done some tweaking and proof reading, as well as a little formatting. Hope it helped! TracyS 12:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks to everyone who helped the article and added the other information. I had planned on adding it, but I was looking for the citation of the park that is named after him and the Ranger course that is also named after him. You know the one where your face is in mud and rounds are shot over your head.--Harrymd 08:02, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

World Of Warcraft

Describing World of Warcraft as a "dark fantasy violent video game" is a bit of an exaggeration. It's rated 'Teen' which means it has "content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older". It's quite tame compared to many video games out there. Also, many news sources are reporting that he played WoW. --MatthewQ 01:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Amy Winehouse

The source cited states that the cause of death is unknown, not that she died from a drug overdose. SharonW 01:51, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Drug use is tolerated by the atheist liberals in England. Not only that, but their socialist health care system is far less effective at treating drug addiction. If she'd lived in America where she could have been exposed to some powerful conservative ideals, she might have lived. --FergusE 16:45, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Much like Kurt Cobain or Jimmy Hendrix? TonyB 17:59, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
They lacked the sense of personal responsibility that conservatism offers. You'll note that I said Winehouse "might have lived" because, being as she lived in a liberal, socialist country, she was never exposed to conservative values and as such lacked the sense of responsibility and ambition to change. If she'd been raised in the United States, where these values are much more common, there's no telling what she could have done. --FergusE 19:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

"The official story defies logic in the following sense as well"

I'd just like to pop in and mention Jared Lee Loughner. Why did he, a purported liberal, shoot Gabrielle Giffords? That's because these senseless acts of violence don't make sense. These people are not indicative of political movements, and political movements all have their crazed radicals capable of such atrocities. Liberal or Conservative, Muslim or Christian, it doesn't matter. Some people are just idiots.--CamilleT 09:47, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

You can't deny a strong correlation between Muslims and terroristic acts of violence. --FergusE 17:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
He couldn't deny it if there was a correlation in the first place. The vast majority of terrorist acts in Europe have nothing to do with muslims. In fact, in 2006 there were just shy of 500 successful terrorist attacks in the EU, however only one was committed by muslim extremists. This was despite the fact that of the 700 different terror suspects arrested during that year, half were muslims. In the EU, there are far more fascist/communist groups operating than muslim ones, and most attacks are committed by separatist/nationalist groups. It is also worth noting that in the major acts of Islamic terrorism, such as 9/11, the terrorists would often kill hundreds of other muslims in the process of "striking the great satan". Further more, terrorism tends to be largely localised, resulting in the terrorists inevitably killing their own country folk. Terrorists are indiscriminate in their attacks; just so long as it is a high death count, they aren't much interested in who dies. --Maninahat 11:24, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights?

Discussion moved to Conservapedia:Community Portal

Short answer, no.

Did a liberal insert the terms "Christian" and "conservative" on a Facebook page about the perpetrator of the Norway massacre. I don't understand what the issue is here. The killer said he was a Christian and he was certainly anti-liberal. Why are we looking for silly conspiracy theories when the answer is simple - he was a crazed man who thought he was doing something good. MaxFletcher 17:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Has Facebook commented on the authenticity of the English version of his entry? Was it genuine?--Andy Schlafly 20:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Until there is a reason to think it isn't genuine it is pure baseless speculation to say otherwise. A single blog post doesn't say much and the man's own words show him to be vehemently anti-liberal. His political and religious leanings are irrelevant though - he was obviously a sick man. MaxFletcher 21:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
He says, in his own manifesto that he is a moderately religious protestant (not fundamentalist though) and he wished to fight for a judeo-christian Europe. MaxFletcher 21:31, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, I think an English-language Facebook entry by a Norwegian, with terms like "Christianity" and "conservative" appearing in an opportune way for the liberal media to repeat, is presumptively not genuine. Is Facebook going to clarify?--Andy Schlafly 21:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Well aside from facebook there is his own journal as noted above. MaxFletcher 21:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

As said, an explanation for the 2 different profiles is that.

"Both screenshots are accurate/genuine. The first screenshot was take by someone not logged in to Facebook. Note the lack of location and career bar. Those details were hidden from non-users. The second screenshot showed information such as location, education and notable philosophy because the person viewing the profile was logged into Facebook. Privacy settings allowed this person to view this information." 21:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

His manifesto supports both the reported political and religious leanings. As he is still alive I am sure a fuller picture will emerge. MaxFletcher 21:42, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm out of the loop on all of this, I just don't keep up with MSM news always. Does this report from the LA TImes about 12 days ago have any relevance? Facebook data privacy questioned by Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Rob Smith 21:49, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Facebook is irrelevant in light of his own words. MaxFletcher 21:51, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

I believe I read an article where the police cited his online postings, including his Facebook account. I would imagine Facebook would have verified the account to the police. I will try to find the article where I read it. SharonW 21:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Is it so hard to believe that someone who calls themselves Conservative commits a horrible crime? Wanting limited government and imposing one's interpretation of Christian values does not a saint make. It's not an absurd notion that this Norwegian fellow deemed himself a Conservative Christian. Was Richard Nixon a liberal? Was Timothy McVeigh a liberal? Besides, Conservapedia has plenty of left wing crooks and abominations to make straw men out of. You have Lee Harvey Oswald, you have Jared Lee Loughner, you have the Weathermen Underground, and many, many other corrupt, insane, or downright evil liberals.--CamilleT 23:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
I agree Camille. Max has a good point too. When you're sick enough to shoot people, your political leanings are irrelevant. I think Andy is trying to make the case that it's liberalism (and video games) that causes these things. TerryB 07:23, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but I can not believe that Breivik's own article exonerates him. Why would it do it? The guy admitted it and will probably be interesting to see his punishment since Norway lacks a death penalty now. A picture of the scene even shows a white male as the shooter.--Harrymd 15:36, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Jimi Hendrix et al.

Jimi Hendrix died 30 years before Wikipedia was founded. Kurt Cobain died about 5 years before Wikipedia was founded. (Most of the rest of the list I've never heard of, but pop culture isn't my thing.) I'm confused how one can claim that they "They were all drug abusers, glamorized by the rock music industry and Wikipedia, who died at the young age of 27." JoshuaZ 20:22, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Nothing you say contradicts the headline, and the point of the headline. Amy Winehouse obviously died after the rock music industry and Wikipedia glamorized the drug abusing performers who likewise died prematurely.
As a general matter, glamorizing of such "stars" has the potential for misleading young people. Do you agree?--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Whether I agree or not with that claim (I'm somewhat inclined to agree that it has the potential, but at the same time, I think that having such people actually die from drug use probably does if anything a good job of getting kids to understand the dangers). But that's not relevant. The relevant point in the headline is the claim that Wikipedia is somehow responsible for glamorizing people who died decades before the project was founded. That's just silly. JoshuaZ 11:39, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy, do you know of any Christian musicians that have died from drugs? I can't think of any, but there might have been; I think it's worth researching. --FergusE 21:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

It all started with Elvis and his hips. SharonW 21:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

I agree that the rock&roll/Hollywood lifestyle is to blame for the deaths of all these young musicians. However lumping Wikipedia in with the rock&roll/Hollywood lifestyle obfuscates the issue. Rock stars and Hollywood stars have been dying as result of their excessively hedonistic life choices for decades prior to Wikipedia.
Reaching as you have to lump Wikipedia in with the these peoples lifestyle choices only serves to dilute the real issue at hand, which is the immorality and lack of values our children are getting from entertainment industry.--MrLCharms 14:39, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Speaker Boehner most popular figure in debt ceiling negotiations.

[15] HP 01:51, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Ghana's crusade on homosexuality

I'm curious as to what the poster was implying when he/she said "liberalism never brings about peace" in the subtext of this headline. If he/she was implying that this "crusade" isn't peaceful, wouldn't the people leading it be to blame, rather than the people they are persecuting?--Jab512 18:07, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

I am also rather confused by the headline. I am not quite sure what it is implying. MaxFletcher 18:07, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
Because of liberalism demonic homosexuality has taken root in Ghana, now a crusade has to take place to clean up their community. Say what you will about the Africans but they haven't been brainwashed by political correctness and the media. Remember that these homosexuals are people that often target children. JimmyRa
I would hardly call Ghana "liberal". MaxFletcher 18:48, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
I'd say they were brainwashed by something else, but i digress. I fail to see how people being who they are requires being "crusaded" upon, and i especially don't see how they could be blamed for the actions of the "crusaders". That would be like blaming jewish people for the holocaust.--Jab512 19:41, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
The feel good story of the year. Liberalism (homosexuality) creeps into African society, pushed by a gay U.N. no doubt. Christians are allied with Muslims to prevent perverse rights from destroying religion and their country. Much that was said in the article about homosexuality is now taboo, suppressed from the children of the West. --Jpatt 20:42, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
Jpatt went off topic, so i dont mind going further off topic. What is so wrong with homosexuality? Spell it out to me without mentioning the 6 or so verses in the Bible that mention it, unless you are also willing to say that it is okay to stone unruly teenagers to death. Modern Christianity has rejected the idea that it is okay to stone teenagers because it has no logical basis, even though it says it in the Bible. If you cannot come up with a logical basis for the persecution of homosexuals, then these 6 or so verses are subject to the same treatment.
The selfish lifestyle shortens lifespan, an essential fact that is censored by the homosexual agenda. Moreover, it's not just 6 or so verses in the Bible that warn against it. An entire account in the Old Testament warns against promoting homosexuality, in the strongest terms possible.--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
I am not familiar with the Old Testament so wondering if it warns about it does it say what must be done? MaxFletcher 21:46, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
How is it selfish? Some studies may suggest homosexuality shortens lifespan (i doubt these studies were unbiased, but whatever) but there have been many studies that show cell phones to reduce lifespan as well. If shortening lifespan is enough to make something evil, where is the moral outcry against cell phones? And regardless of how many times homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, it doesn't change the fact that if you reject the idea that stoning teenagers in okay, even though it says it is in the Bible, that it opens up a window to throw out other things we find morally disturbing. Either the Bible is absolute, and you must believe every word literally (even stoning teenagers to death), or it is not absolute and is open to revisions (such as the part about not eating pork or shellfish, or its ok to stone teenagers, or its ok to beat slaves as long as they dont die)--Jab512 22:01, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
Some of the Old Testament was meant for the Israeli tribes, some represents a more eternal truth; distinguishing between these two categories of divine materiel requires prayer and scholarship. One thing all committed Christians agree on is that homosexuality is a sin. Procreation is for reproduction within the bounds of wedlock. Any who forget this fundamental tenant of Christian dogma are at best pseudoChristians. Any who try to argue that the Bible should be viewed in a relativist light due to some imagined inconsistency of interpretation do Christianity and Christians no favors, but in the long run they do more harm to themselves. JimmyRa
I am a Christian and sometimes I have such difficulty with issues like this. I am not a homosexual but I do try to "hate the sin, not the sinner" so I end up very conflicted (which is partly how I found Conservapedia - trying to expand my spiritual growth). I sinned myself by making love to my wife before marriage but my pastor said that was OK these days but then the same pastor might say the homosexuality is a sin and we shouldn't have relativist thinking about gods law so I get so confused. MaxFletcher 00:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

JimmyRa, who are these scholars to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true, and which are not? If the Bible is the word of God, then it is all true and no amount of scholarship gives them the right to disregard any of it.

We dare not disregard any part of the Bible, it's all a matter of application. Take for example the animal sacrifices God demanded of the Israelite's, clearly this was a command for a specific people at a specific time and place, today even Jews do not continue animal sacrifice. Some parts of the Old Testament like the Sabbath are explicitly set aside in the New Testament. Other parts of the Old Testament are more difficult to parse, but we have two thousand years of tradition and scholarship to guide us, as well as the ongoing guidance of God if you look to him. Christians adhere to several fundamental tenants, including the idea that sex is an act conducted by a heterosexual couple within the bounds of wedlock for the purposes of procreation. Redemption of your sins is always possible with repentance. The degenerates being rounded up in Ghana did not repent of their sins or seek to alter their sinful ways. Homosexuality spreads pedophilia, disease, drug use, and all manner of ills in its wake, the health of Ghana's society will be much improved by removing unrepentant homosexuals from their midst. This would never have become such a large problem if it weren't for liberal institutions promoting homosexuality. JimmyRa
I guess as an agnostic i shouldn't have tried to debate you about your own religion. I do, however, hope that you learn to open your heart and accept people for who they are. --Jab512 10:48, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

The reason we do not stone rebellious teenagers to death is not because we do not think it is wrong to be so, but only because, like ceremonial laws, a change in covenant does not necessitate or allow that the church keep the civil capital penalties. Thus the church itself opposes homosexuality but does not kill them, but seeks their salvation. But the church may support the state to justly penalize immoral behavior, though the reality is that Christian are the ones who are in danger of penalized for non-violent opposition of the current course the West is on.

As for why it is wrong, one verse would suffice for us who find the Bible to the supreme moral authority, and history testifies that obeying His laws are to our benefit and to our collective hurt when forsaken. See [here] for some current stats on the temporal cost alone. and Homosexuality and health

God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)

The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)

As regard Homosexuality and biblical interpretation, pro-homosexual polemics, in all their prolixity, are spurious, and they ultimately require the use of a hermeneutic which would negate any moral law, or negating the authority of the Bible. An extensive examination and refutation of such attempts can be seen here: HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS and the BIBLEDaniel1212 14:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Question Evolution!

Just noticed a small error in the side bar news story about the Question Evolution campaign. it is not being conducted in New Zealand and nor does the link support the statement that it is. Just thought I'd mention it....though I wonder if I should tell my local pastor about it. MaxFletcher 18:55, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Can someone please address this and change the mainpage? MaxFletcher 17:06, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
So no one can address this or change the page? MaxFletcher 00:52, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Why can't the tracts be bought in NZ? They have an office in NZ. I think you are mistaken. Conservative 02:02, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
No, I am not mistaken. Have a look at the CMI NZ event information nothing is happening and a quick google search shows nothing. As it stands the mainpage item is incorrect unless you can provide a link. MaxFletcher 16:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
I can't figure out why this is such resistance to this...? MaxFletcher 23:00, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

fundamentalist Christian

As I am not American I would like to point out that the word fundamentalist (like the word liberal) doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does everywhere else. In Australia for example the use of the word 'fundamentalist' would imply that the person was fanatical, unmoving, stubbon. To describe what Americans describe as a fundimentalist christian we would say 'bible believing', 'literalist'.. etc So what the european's are calling fundamentalist christian doesn't mean he lines up with the beliefs of what those in the US believe a 'fundamentalist Christian' believes. It is a mistake for the MS media to be using the term in the US as it causes confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremytibballs (talk)

Request to add original work rejected by WP

Related to the above, i actually tried to get the below into the WP page [16] (treason!), due to the hits the page is getting now (the page here is one cursory paragraph, and will take a lot of work to make it much of a source) but also as a kind of a test, and it was not allowed after various attempts, based upon my only citing a primary source (the manifesto [17].

I would like to incorporate it into the Anders Behring Breivik here, if allowed, as none of the below is on WP now, and is unlikely to ever appear. And to which i could add more.

In contrast to the common theological understanding of "Christian fundamentalist," that of "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism," and its emphasis on Protestant doctrine and salvation by faith, George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American culture," pp. 3, 4, 110 in his manifesto Breivik referred to "Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity," (p. 1346) and criticized salvation by faith and deplored "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" as "everything we do not want", in favor of "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage", (p. 1346) while he also commended the separation of Church and state. (p. 1132)

Breivik invoked Roman Catholic canon law and the example of the Crusades for support, and looked toward a "Crusader Pope." (p. 1135) He also believed those who died in his case were worthy of an Indulgence, (pp. 1324-26, 46) and stated, "If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past," (p. 1345) and advocated that such take of "the Eucharist (Holy Communion/The Lord's Supper)" for strength to face such death. (p. 1345)

Breivik also considered it sufficient that one be "a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist" to fight for his Christian cultural heritage, (p. 1361, 62) and held that "it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings." (p. 1403)

In an insight on his personal morality, Breivik liked the clubs in Hungary, but avoided affairs with females for the sake of his mission, though he enjoyed getting very drunk at his birthday party. (p. 1415) He also enjoyed video games such as "World of Warcraft' and "Dragon Age Origins ," and stated "I regret to admit that I’ve become a notorious downloader of pirated movies, series and games etc." (p. 1418)Daniel1212 11:11, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Anyone home? Daniel1212 19:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Daniel, you don't need permission to add edits here!--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank God, but i was concerned about the letter of the law against copying from WP, though it is only my compilation that i would be, and they rejected it. Their loss. And the premise for which i find troubling, as no matter what a person themselves wrote, according to them it cannot be included, as what parts to include is "not a choice for us to make; some secondary source (newspapers, magazines, books (eventuallly)) must make that choice for us."[18] Thus all the above must be rejected, and reliance upon the MSM is largely fostered.Daniel1212 09:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Facebook louts again

I see the louts on Facebook are disgracing themselves again, making terrible comments about the Japanese winning the Women's World cup. Before the game, there were many references to tsunamis, etc, and after Japan won the comments were even worse, with racial slurs and references like "You might have won the game, but we nuked Hiroshima!" [19] [20] TracyS 11:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

This is more a reflection of society in general than that of facebook itself. Facebook doesn't control what people say on its site.--Jab512 22:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Request to change name of category

Would an admin please change the name of "category:Medal of Honor winners" to the more appropriate "category:Medal of Honor recipients"? These men fought for, and in many cases, died for our country - they weren't competing in American Idol. Thanks oodles. SharonW 16:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

New NASA data on Global Warming

It looks like ClimateGate has made an impact: NASA revealed their latest satellite data on climate change, collected from the years 2000 to 2011, which indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted.[21]

The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.

Meanwhile, the federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic that helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific fascism, possibly over the veracity of that article.[22]

Hey Algore, is hot in here or is it just me? DerekE 11:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


I have to say, this website almost makes me ashamed to call myself a conservative and a Christian. This website is the prime example of what living in a closed-minded bubble of one-sided media can do. We may disagree with liberals, but they aren't evil. They are people just like the rest of us. Often they have valid points. I think if we are really going to turn this country around we should stop this disgusting finger pointing and stop all this immaturity.--Ccr1234 16:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

If you refuse to open your mind to the ideals of this site, why are you here? NickP 23:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9; "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!" - Jesus, Matthew 7:11 ; “Without me ye can do nothing.” - Jesus; Resources on becoming a Christian: Conservative 09:09, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Nintendo's loss

is Xbox's gain.Xbox profits double Online gaming is very profitable as well. Here's a quote from the following article: "....Valve has higher profits per employee than Apple or Google." Valve and Steam profits I don't think the industry is fading. --SharonW 19:17, 28 July 2011 (EDT)--SharonW 19:17, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Nintendo's low profit actually has nothing to do with people moving away from violent video games, as the headline suggests. It actually has more to do with the fact that practically no third-party game companies are making games for the Wii, causing it to become less popular. The Wii's lack of HD graphics and its use of motion controls make it hard to port games like "Call of Duty" or "Battlefield" onto the system successfully. So, if anything, it's actually the lack of violent games that is causing the decline in profits.--Jab512 19:21, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Can it really be considered a loss for nintendo? I mean they already put a Wii in every household, the 3DS is so far lacking in any real game titles, and there's the fact people have somewhat more pressing issues to pay money on, and as SharonW said, they have two main competitors and the entire computer market also pushing against them. --SeanS 19:23, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Not in every household - we have 2 old Xboxes and 1 Xbox360 - courtesy of the grandparents. ;-) --SharonW 19:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I think Nintendo's loss is actually a bad thing overall. Nintendo has always been the most family friendly Video Game company, and the fact that its far more violent competitors are doing better is not something to be proud of. NickP 19:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Again, theres a reason WHY it posted a loss: Anybody buying its main console will have, its current main handheld is currently lackluster in its use and theres a recession. This has been predicted to happen since the Wii exploded into a Hit--SeanS 19:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Excellent insights above. I hesitated in posting the story because I had heard that Nintendo was more family friendly, and that may be why it is struggling as the industry becomes more violent. But the striking low in profits does suggest some decline video-game playing. The article said there were fewer successful games being developed for Nintendo. Perhaps online gaming more than offsets that, as noted above.--Andy Schlafly 21:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Well, Nintendo dominates in the Casual crowd but also has a major problem in getting games: Its console, the wii, uses motion control. It makes it harder to program games for it, which is why most third party titles hang around the others. But yes the trend is going for more Graphic games. Compare titles in Franchises that made their appearance in Ye old days to titles in said franchises in today's market: Many are definitely more violent. (Of course, the inverse is also true) --SeanS 21:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Nintendo has always had a reputation of being family friendly and even kid designed. This reputation goes back to the 90s when Sega had the upper hand by releasing some violent games that were censored on their Nintendo releases. They seem to have had a lack of third party support since the days of the Sixty-four for the very same reasons. So, Nintendo lacking violent games is most certainly not a new thing. I have heard something about the possibility of Nintendo doing what Sega did: develop their titles like Mario for other consoles. It probably won't happen though.--JamesWilson 10:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
It didn't help that the 64 used carts. and not Discs. And no, nintendo will never push its 1st parties to other consoles, nintendos strategy of "rerelease games we made 10/20 years ago for profit" has yet to fail.--SeanS 10:59, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
True, and even the GameCube used those mini disc things. The rerelease tactic has worked very well on many people, especially Wii's Virtual Console, but doesn't work on old geezers like me who have the original carts!--JamesWilson 11:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Actually i was referring to the part where all nintendo in house games tend to have the same plot, especially mario, Zelda and especially pokemon. :P But the virtual console is an attempt to combat Emulation as well. --SeanS 11:12, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I have never played Pokemon, but the plot in every Mario game is Save the Princess! So, you're right. But, Nintendo has made big bucks with their Game Boy and Wii ports of old NES games. But, people are going to use emulation because it's there. My nephews used to do it, although I believe it was actually a legal Atari thing. But, how much has the VC impacted the emulation scene?--JamesWilson 11:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
You pay for the VC, you get emulators for free. and no, emulators are only vaguely legal, and youd lose a court case if brought to trial.--SeanS 11:32, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
My mistake. It was actually a disc they purchased from Walmart made by Atari. It wasn't an emulator. I just thought it was since they were doing it on a computer. So, paid things aren't technically considered emulatorss, even if they are on a computer--JamesWilson 11:38, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
More or less yes. --SeanS 11:40, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks! Geezers like me tend to be somewhat incompetent with these things, like me who has been playing games since the 80s! But you sure seem to know what you're talking about!--JamesWilson 11:48, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia Android App

For anyone who's interested, I created a quick Conservapedia app for Android. You can see it here. I'd like to have gotten it in the market, but I don't know how to do that. --FergusE 19:42, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

how about one for i-Phone? MaxFletcher 19:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I would, but I don't have an iPhone, and Apple would probably reject a Conservapedia app anyway. If anyone here knows iPhone development, they should give it a try though. --FergusE 19:50, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Android is powered by Google, which is also very liberal (Algore is on Google's senior advisory board)[23]. Apple would most likely approve an app if one were created and wasn't malware or something like that. I have an iPad and iPhone, and would definitely download a Conservapedia app if one existed. Nice work on the Android app though! DerekE 14:15, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Despite whatever perceived liberal leanings, google is a lot more open and less controlling about content on their market, not to mention that phones can run non-market apps without a problem. In order to get a non-apple approved app on the iphone it requires a warranty voiding jailbreak and getting it on the appstore requires a developer subscription ($100 per year for FergusE) and the app has to pass certain quality control restrictions.DenisTR 17:40, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

A liberal atheist

I am an atheist as well as a liberal. I live my life according to the rules of the land and treat everyone with love and respect. So I find it offensive that there are a so many derogatory articles about people like me. Can we not peacefully co-exist...? Can we not be friends? Why insult me? I offer you a hand in friendship. Let us make this world a better place by not slinging mud at each other. --Orsay 09:06, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

See these stories which appeared during the past few days: [24][25][26]. The common thread here is that atheists are shoving their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and this site highlights that fact. We're not going to set aside our First Amendment rights for a minority of people who hate God. Karajou 09:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't think there should be a cross at the 9/11 memorial because it disenfranchises hundreds of Americans. I don't think a governor should be declaring a day of prayer for the same reason. I also have yet to meet an atheist who hates god. TerryB 10:39, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
And you prefer to disenfranchise the millions of American who believe that cross should be there? And you believe that day of prayer must be stopped for the people who enjoy it because you and other atheists don't like it? Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but you just demonstrated your own hatred of God here, TerryB. Karajou 10:50, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm curious, because I haven't kept up with this story. Have any other religious symbols been added to the memorial? If so, were they included in the lawsuit? SharonW 10:53, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
This particular memorial is different. It was the remains of a steel beam from one of the Twin Towers, and it was found in the ruble with a short crossbeam attached; the over-all shape was that of a cross. That gives it a lot of meaning for the people who had family die during the attacks on 9/11, and they are never going to cave into the demands of a few atheists who don't like looking at the thing. Karajou 11:00, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm not an atheist, Karajou, and I certainly don't hate God. It doesn't matter what millions of Americans think, they weren't the ones killed. If they want to have their own 9/11 Christian-centric memorial, fine, but not at ground zero. And yes, I believe that a day of prayer led by a governor is inappropriate and should be stopped. Don't apologize for disagreeing, that's our right as Americans. TerryB 11:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Nobody would be disenfranchised by a cross not being there. Its absence would only bring about the neutral stance on religion that the government should have. The day of prayer in Texas is wrong because it sends a message to the country that we put Christianity before any other religion. As an agnostic, i do not wish to push my beliefs on anyone. I only wish to not have religion pushed on me by the government. Luckily the founding fathers agreed with me.--Jab512 11:06, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
By stopping other Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights, you are pushing your own religious beliefs on them. That cross is part of Ground Zero whether you like it or not; millions of Americans may not have been there, but the fire fighters, cops, and other rescue workers that were there discovered it as they were trying to save the lives of the victims under that ruble. All you're doing TerryB and Jabs is to tell those people not only can they not have the cross there on display, but you're slapping them in the face in the process. As to Gov. Perry, just because he's in the governor's seat does not mean he can set aside his First Amendment rights; he can pray any time he wants, any where he wants, for any reason he wants, and if he wants to invite people to join him in that prayer, he can do so. No one has the right or authority to stop him from doing so. And that applies to any American doing the same thing. Karajou 11:13, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Nor would only Christians be disenfranchised. Keep in mind that the cross, in this case, is a piece of the actual Towers. It's a piece of history, one which I think most of us clearly recall from the terrible days following the attack. I know many non-Christians who would object to having it removed for its historical significance alone. --Benp 12:00, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
I thought the cross was put up by the state. I must have been misinformed. If it was put up without gov't funding then it absolutely should be there. I fully support the free exercise of religion, however i am very opposed to any government support or involvement in it. --Jab512 13:06, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Let me ask you this: if the government had put up a piece of the girders from the Towers that DIDN'T happen to look like a cross, would that be acceptable? If so, doesn't that mean that the difference between what's acceptable and not acceptable is whether or not some people will consider a given shape offensive? --Benp 00:45, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

An aside to Karajou: How can an atheist "hate God" if he or she does not believe in God's existence? KBarnett 18:01, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

The "if" is the flaw in your argument. Not all self-described "atheists" are likely to think God does not exist. Some may know God exists, but want to deny His existence to others (or to themselves). It's like liberals who denied that Republicans would win the House in 2010.--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Atheism is the rejection of belief in a deity. Atheism and belief in a deity are mutually exclusive, and anyone who believes in a deity (or deities) is simply not an atheist. Also, can you explain how the 2010 midterm analogy relates to this discussion? KBarnett 23:23, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, Aschlafly, but we're not some crazy cult of people that are out to get you sent to Hell. We just happen to not put faith in religion. That's the problem with the mindset of this website. Anyone who disagrees with you is portrayed as some kind of evil conspirator trying to manipulate or even hurt people. I do not hate religion, i don't judge people for believing in it, i don't even tell people I'm an agnostic unless asked. Not because I'm ashamed, but because i have nothing to gain from convincing you to my side. As long as it stays out of government and public schools i am perfectly okay with religion.--Jab512 23:19, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Not every self-description is accurate, or should be taken at face value. We know that some liberals pretend to be conservative around election time.
If someone admits he hates God, then he's not likely to persuade anyone. Maybe you don't hate religion, but obviously some people do.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I am sorry but you are still wrong. If someone believes that God exists (which they must do in order to hate God) then they are by definition not an atheist. --JarradD 01:40, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Again, the flaw is the "if". Someone who says he's an atheist may not actually be an atheist.
If whatever people said about themselves were automatically true, then society could save a ton of money by defunding the judiciary.
Jesus stated the obvious truth that not everyone who says he's a Christian really is one.--Andy Schlafly 13:06, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Andy is right. An atheist is someone who claims to not believe in god. It is impossible to actually know what they believe, as they are skilled in deceit. In response to the atheists above, even if you claim to not hate religion, that doesn't change the fact that many atheists do, and those are the ones who "stand out" the most. I don't think there are any articles on this wiki that say "All atheists are this", rather that "many atheists are this". NickP 13:13, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Assume for a second (if you can) that there is a truth-telling, undeceitful atheist. Remember, this is a hypothetical, so don't go gather your proselytization materials and try to convert him. This atheist does not believe in a deity. How does that make him not an atheist? —KBarnett 13:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
You seem to be describing an agnostic. But more to the point, if you want to assume someone is an atheist, then your assumption may be wrong.--Andy Schlafly 13:49, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I am not describing an agnostic. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of a deity is inherently unknowable. Agnosticism has a wide range, but what I described previously was not an agnostic, but an atheist. Are you asserting that there are no atheists? —KBarnett 14:01, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't Agnosticism a kind of atheist? As long as you do not believe in God, you are an Atheist. NickP 14:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I'll correct you, because you are indeed wrong. An agnostic does not know if God exists, and believes that it is unknowable. There are differing degrees of agnosticism, from those who believe that no one can truly know if God exists or not to those who believe in God and are not 100% sure about his existence (that is what we call "faith"). Atheism rejects the idea of God, or a higher power. An agnostic is not an atheist. —KBarnett 14:31, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
And I'll correct Aschlafly. The original question that he responded to was: "How can an atheist hate God"? The answer is quite clearly that an atheist cannot hate God. Aschlafly has been dealing with the irrelevant and somewhat bizarre situation of a person who is pretending to be an atheist, hating God. --JarradD 18:10, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
KBarnett said, "This atheist does not believe in a deity." The same could be said about an agnostic, and perhaps about a Buddhist. An atheist is one who insists that God does NOT exist. Of course, just as not all people who say they are Christians really are, not all people who say they are atheists really are. Some may know God exists, but prefer to deny it.--Andy Schlafly 18:16, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Aschlafly, did you read the post immediately above your post? Can you bring yourself to agree that an atheist cannot hate God? --JarradD 18:35, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I think this discussion has deviated from my original post. My original point was ... Yes I am an atheist, Yes I am a liberal. Should that stop us from being civil to each other? Can we still not be friends with two different beliefs?--Orsay 17:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservatives typically are civil. Perhaps your comment would be better addressed to atheists who are not civil, like the one who stole the cross from the Mojave Desert. Why don't you object to how Richard Dawkins called for the arrest of the Pope?--Andy Schlafly 18:16, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Don't those two suggestions both suffer from the difficulty that they relate to isolated examples of behaviour that you attempt to use to discredit all atheists? Furthermore, are you just assuming that the cross in the Mojave desert was taken by atheists? Or do you have special information? My understanding is that the perpetrators are unknown and that their religious beliefs (or lack of them) are also unknown. --JarradD 18:30, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, I totally agree that conservatives are typically civil. Just like liberal and atheist people are typically civil. There are bad apples on both sides. I am sure that if we met each other on a social or academic platform, we will be nice and friendly to each other. You probably would not tell me that atheists are over weight pigs or that they lack manliness (or macheesmo as you site describes it). I admire you for what you are trying to achieve. Your initiative in going ahead and starting a website like this tells me that you are not just a talker, but a doer as well. That is a quality I admire. My question is can we not behave online with mutual respect and purge cheap insults against people like me (mainly created by one sysop) from your website? If they are meant to be humorous, they fall flat and are classless. --Orsay 19:35, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
What does "fall flat" is when atheists object to humor on this site, but don't object to the far more offensive behavior of other atheists elsewhere ... such as Dawkins calling for the arrest of the Pope. How about complaining about the greater excesses (no pun intended) on the atheistic side, before sermonizing here?--Andy Schlafly 20:28, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I can only speak for myself Aschlafly. Just as you can only speak for yourself. I have no power over what other people do, even if they share many of my beliefs. The important thing is that I treat those who disagree with me with respect. I suggest you do the same. This whole "I'll stop when they stop" is completely immature.--Jab512 00:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Dear Mr Schlafly, I was raising the point about your website labelling us with derogatory terms, not complaining against third parties. You have absolute control over your website. On the contrary I have nothing to do with Prof. Richard Dawkins. Hence what Prof. Dawkins do is completely irrelevant here. But if you ask my opinion, I do not object to Prof. Dawkins supporting arrest of the Pope as I consider child abuse and paedophilia as the worst of the crimes. If it was perpetuated within an organisation and the CEO was covering it up or refusing to handover the details of internal investigation to the police, he would have to face criminal charges. Why should the Pope be treated any different.--Orsay 03:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Civility is correct here, but as for the reasoning, "The day of prayer in Texas is wrong because it sends a message to the country that we put Christianity before any other religion," the fact is by not having any day of prayer or the like official sanction of such then it sends a message to the country that we do not see ourselves in need of help from a Creator, or deem anyone more than man worthy of our gratitude. Thus it officially fosters agnosticism or atheism.

You can argue that not allowing state sanctioned prayer means we recognize the state has no business in that, but you cannot separate the state from a basic belief system and practices, and in a Democracy the people will decide what that is. And in America the Christian faith was it, and in the general sense the Gov., including the writers of the 1st Amendment, overall sanctioned it, and which was reflected in courts and schools for a long time. See Separation of church and state and Moral decline And by censoring churches from endorsing candidates within the church itself via 501(3)(c) (voluntary but basically needed) then it seeks to silence not just gov. from positively speaking about religion, but religion from speaking about government, contrary the 1st Amendment.

This means of establishment does allow that the people may choose to officially sanction atheism, and with officially sanctioned secularism - which is intolerant of official sanction of the general Christian faith - then it is. And which functionally serves as religion in determining an ever morphing morality, to our collective hurt[27]. Daniel1212 10:42, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

It's this time of the month again...

Just for the record: I don't doubt Aschlafly's statements about the record-breaking numbers. I just want to see the actual numbers to be able to put them in perspective. Aschlafly writes:

As newspapers and television decline, Conservapedia continues to grow in quality traffic.

Over the last month Conservapedia had ca. 20,000,000 views. That equals roughly the number of exemplars of the New York Times printed over the same period. The number of edits to Conservapedia was ca. 20,000 - that's less than half the number of reporters and correspondents working in the United States.

So, how many unique visitors are here at Conservapedia in a month? More than reading the Wall Street Journal on a single day (2,000,000)? Or less than readers of the Star-Ledger (220,000)? When you link the decline of the traditional media to the growth of Conservapedia, the numbers should be roughly of the same size...

And could you please clarify the phrase: Conservapedia breaks our record for unique visitors in July, well before the end of the month? Does this mean tha July 2011 is the best month of all time (even better than June 2011 - which was the best month of 2011 until then) - or that July 2011 fairs better than any previous July?

  • Could you please show us the data?
  • Does the time-line for the data begin in 2007 - or later with some server-upgrade?

AugustO 09:02, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

It looks like you are going to be ignored this month. Conservative 22:54, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
What is your problem? TerryB 12:17, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't ask for much - just the monthly number of unique viewers over the observed period. It's obvious that Aschlafly has this information, as the announced records are based on these numbers. As I have read Conservapedia :Lenski dialog and Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog I was under the impression that Conservapedia generally advocates the disclosure of data like that, allowing the best of the public to draw their own conclusion based on the actual data.
Aschlafly gives no reason for withholding these numbers, one has to assume that this is done for the sake of secrecy alone. That's not only disappointing, but may be counted in the future against Aschlafly should he ask for disclosure of data on an occasion similar to the events around Prof. Lenski's experiments.
Frankly, the conclusiveness re this topic suggests that the numbers aren't that formidable and that therefore only the records were announced. Conservapedia should try to avoid giving such an impression.
AugustO 14:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
RobSmith posted this diagram on Aschlafly's talk-page. Is it accurate? And can we have something similar for the number of unique visitors per month?
10:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Friday's debate

For those over here who missed it, I managed to record at least the second part of the debate (I sadly missed the part before the headlines, though I think/hope it wasn't much): --Sid 3050 08:06, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

The current WH occupant has turned our country into a zoo.

Real presidential, Obambi. Rickroll ... Are you kidding me? HP 15:43, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

When people try to criticize EVERYTHING, it starts to get tiring. TerryB 23:39, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
Grasping at straws there, Terry? HP 11:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Are you? Can't you find something that matters to criticize? TerryB 13:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Regarding the graph on the front page

Two points: 1. I feel that graph is somewhat misleading. It shows the "net federal outlays" constantly rising over the last 10 years or so, though rising more rapidly during the Obama years. The graph however, seems to attempt to portray the outlays as staying more or less constant during the Bush years, even though they still were on the rise.--SLionel 03:16, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

NY Times advises letting teens fornicate at home

Amy Schalet is a sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, via an education at Berkeley and Harvard and a postdoctoral fellowship at UC San Francisco. [Need we say more?]

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, " (Romans 1:22)

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. " (Psalms 2:1-3)

God's laws and principles (including benefits requiring responsibility) are to our collective benefit when obeyed, and to our hurt when neglected. As marriage goes so does the family, and when the family goes so does the nation, and all the kings men and money will not fix it, but the surrender of saving faith to the Christ of Scripture who saves sinners will.

From promoting citizenship without oaths of allegiance to sexual relations without the lifetime commitment of marriage, the Left continues it War against the only-wise and holy God, at great cost of souls, lives and money:

"Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Deuteronomy 12:8)

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalms 19:7)

".. a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law." (Romans 2:19-20)

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. " (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Daniel1212 08:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Post the original article, please?--SLionel 01:31, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Here Or just go to the page and hit the hyperlinked words at the top. Daniel1212 10:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Violent Video Games and Free Speech

Isn't there a free speech/"nanny state" implication here? I know that this is a private decision of a business to not stock a particular title/game but what would the opinion be if the government out right banned it? Does that not take away our choices as a consumer? MaxFletcher 19:50, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm kind of confused as to why this site so adamantly opposes the "Nanny state" but supports the ban on selling violent games to people under 18. Whether it's unhealthy foods or violent video games it is still government taking over the jobs of the parents.--Jab512 21:16, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't mind an age limit, alcohol and cigarettes do, but I don't think we should be going hurrah when a store removes these games. MaxFletcher 21:34, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

A suggestion

I have a quick suggestion for the news item on the front page - could the phrase en banc be linked to the article for en banc? I hadn't heard the phrase before, and enjoyed the reading; perhaps others would as well. EricAlstrom 21:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia is proven right, again

You know, video games are one of my principal pastimes. Some of the games I play can be quite violent (certainly more violent than the ones Breivik is said to have played). I've yet to go on a murderous rampage. In fact, the only "weapon" I own is a Swiss army knife in desperate need of a sharpening, and I'm generally pretty pacifistic.--CamilleT 18:07, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Was the title meant to be sarcastic? That's the exact opposite of what this site claims--Jab512 21:18, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Maybe only 0.1% of violent video game players become violent themselves. But when a million kids are playing these games, that's 1,000 problems.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
On the other hand, we could say the same thing about martial arts or the recreational usage of firearms. Surely a comparable percentage of participants in those activities become violent, but we wouldn't say that those activities are bad or dangerous because of that. SolomonM 21:35, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
The analogy doesn't work. Those other activities are not addictive and harmful the way that violent video games are.--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
It doesn't work no because when you practice kung-fu you are not doing so on a simulated person who sprays gore. MaxFletcher 21:45, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
But when you practice kung-fu you're actually attacking a real life person, who might get injured. When you hunt, you kill a real living being. I've noticed stuff like this a lot in conversations about violence in video games. The point of my analogy was not to say video games aren't violence inducing, it was that talking like we are now is really meaningless. People just say things without actually citing any evidence. From what I've seen, there is some research that agrees with your perspective, and some that disagrees. As a layman, I'm not really sure what to believe, but I do know that blaming the Norway shooting on violent video games is exactly like when the mainstream media blamed it on Christian Fundamentalism. You simply can't make that inference without at least performing a psychological evaluation of the guy. Otherwise, you're just speculating. Good evening. SolomonM 21:53, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Logic is useful, and all it takes is to apply some logic to realize that a small percentage of violent video game players are going to go violent in real life, and a bigger percentage may not go violent but will become depressed and have difficulties handling real world situations where violent reactions are prohibited.--Andy Schlafly 00:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
We must have different definitions of logic then. I generally assume that in discussions of this sort, we use inductive logic. So I could say something like, "Study X shows that with a high level of certainty, violent video games make people more violent. Therefore, if Y is a gamer, we can expect him to be more violent that non-gamer Z." This form of logic does not allow for things like "video games are violent. Therefore, people who play violent video games might be more likely to become violent." Not to say that the inference isn't true! It's just in the absence of actual evidence, this kind of "logic" is merely speculation. This type of speculation, while useful in casual talk, can be very dangerous. Consider the rationality assumptions of economic theory. Economists for over a century used this kind of supposed "logic" to assume that people behave rationally all the time. Why? Well, to them, it makes sense, just like your pseudo-logic makes sense to you. But modern experimental economics have started disproving these assumptions.
Anyways, one last thing, and if you address any of what I say here, please make it this last point, because I think I'm done editing on this site forever. The opening sentence on the Wikipedia article "Conservatism" is:
"Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society."
The opening sentence on the Conservapedia article "liberal" is:
"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons."
Which of those sounds more biased to you? Which of those seem like it comes from a legitimate encyclopedia? If you think it's the latter, I truly pity you. You seem like a really smart guy, and I'm sorry to see you waste your time. Goodbye. SolomonM 01:00, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I do kung-fu and one thing it teaches you, as well as self defense, is discipline. Video Games have no such teaching. MaxFletcher 00:34, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
You should take a look at some competitive gaming leagues. They do some pretty incredible stuff, and they definitely are disciplined. SolomonM 01:00, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
What I mean is Kung-Fu is a bad analogy because it disciplines you to only use Kung-Fu defensively. MaxFletcher 01:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Alright I'm editing one more time because you're so nice. You're right. The specific analogy I used is wrong, perhaps a better one would be alcohol. Alcohol certainly makes people more violent, probably much moreso than video games, but we wouldn't consider it to be immoral unless it is abused. If someone is addicted to video games and revels in the violence, then that's definitely harmful. But violent video games themselves are not inherently immoral. Nice talking with you, bye. SolomonM 01:27, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Recent trends show that as video games have become more popular, violent crimes have dropped significantly, being at their lowest levels since the mid-60s If anything, video games have reduced violent crime since their massive rise in popularity since the 90s. It is easy to say that violent games are causing violence when the majority of teens are playing them, so almost any violent crime can be somehow linked to video games. Something being logical does not mean it is truthful. The majority of teens play video games, But the majority of teens also have shoes. Do shoes cause violent crimes?FCapra 01:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Okay I promised above that I was done editing but I just have to give you some guidance. The data you referenced has nothing to do with video games, and could be explained in a different way. For example, increases in access to education and law enforcement quality could have massively reduced crime, but video games could still encourage violence in just .1% of gamers, like Andy said. The overall effect would still be a decline in crime, even though video games are encouraging violence. I would suggest you look at this PBS site for some interesting references more related to video games: [28] SolomonM 01:36, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
And just because a guy played extremely popular video games and went on a killing spree, that means the video games were directly responsible? It could have been his extremist beliefs or a pre-existing mental condition. My statement that the correlation of reduced crime rates and increased video game use is just as valid, if not more-so, that the correlation between a single person playing video games and mass murder. This guy also wore shoes, thus we can connect shoes to mass murder. SolomonM

It is true that one must be careful in asserting casual effects, and liberals want to blame Christianity for Anders Behring Breivik's murders, or war movies for violence, but it is how such is displayed. The context of violence in the Bible or in most classic war movie is a moral one, and is not gratuitous, in contrast to what i expect is the case with video games. (I never played one, and for those who have, i was wondering if Breivik's talk about "bonus" hits on his enemies could be a video game term.) Likewise there is a vast difference between the Song of Solomon and pornography.

I submit that both gratuitous violence and pornography, besides wasting time, desensitize the watcher over time, and can entice him to do experience the real thing, with a superficial appreciation of all that it means. Daniel1212 10:34, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

And I submit that violence and pornography act as relatively non-violent hobbies that make the actual acts significantly less appealing to the vast majority of people. Why go out and murder some people if your friends want to raid a dungeon or "pwn some noobs" in Call of Duty? The OVERWHELMING majority of people would rather kill people in a game than in real life, and even if a few people do kill people as a result of video games, this is canceled out by the majority of people who are kept off the streets and away from even worse influences, such as drugs, by the non-violent hobby of gaming.
In addition, you are completely wrong in saying that killing in video games is never a moral choice. In Planescape: Torment, widely considered one of the best and most artistic games of all time, killing is usually the worst way to solve a problem, and it often has a negative impact on the rest of the game. Games in which killing is the only option and have no morality to them, such as Call of Duty, are widely considered artistic trash. Video Games are art, whether or not individuals feel that way. Some games have important moral themes, such as "Neverwinter Nights 2" expressing the pointlessness and misery inherent to atheism, or "Psychonauts" expressing the importance of overcoming ones fears. Saying these games are not artistically meaningful or significant is a lie, and making broad stereotypes on all types of games without even playing them is deceitful. Even free Flash games have moral themes, such as the entire "Art Games" category on Newgrounds.

The moral panic against video games is just as impotent and divorced from logic as the panics against comic books, rock music, and the printing press, and there is no evidence that video games are more detrimental to society than any other art form. if anything, recent trends have shown that video games are actually beneficial to society.FCapra 12:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

FCapra I kind of agree with you, but not entirely. Call of Duty has morality thrown into it. If you were to play the campaign you would see it. In Call of Duty 4 a nuke goes off and you play as the character in his final moments (no shots fired). Even in the first "level" you are a non combatant character that is the former president of some ME country. You "play" as the character looking through his eyes also in his final moments. In fact the whole game is you retaliating against a force that is willing to kill as many people as possible while your goal is to stop their vile attacks.
In the next Call of Duty game World at War you switch between playing a Russian soldier on the Eastern front and an American in the Pacific theater. The Russian campaign opens up with a enemy at the gate-esque scene where you see your fellow soldiers dead, very sad and scary. A fellow companion in the Russian campaign often comments on the immorality of some of the atrocities committed by both sides, at one point you choose either to burn POWs alive, shoot them, or leave them. If you choose one of less moral ones a comment is made saying how horrible it was. The American campaign I think brings out the brutality of the Pacific Theater and in one mission you play as a PBY pilot (I loved that level because my grandpa was PBY navigator) and rescue sailors from a Japanese attack on a Naval convoy.
Now I believe the biggest controversy of all was with Modern Warfare 2. There was a level that you played as an undercover CIA agent in Russian terrorist organisation. In the level an airport is attack where civilians are killed. The level was completely optional and the game could be played without ever playing it. I know when I played the level I personally did not shoot one civilian and I was able to finish the level, which ends with you dead.
Now the morality comes into play here that infinity ward intentionally made this level to be depressing and as sad as possible. If you played the game you would understand. Later on in the game when our great capital is in ruins you get the feeling of desperation and why you are fighting. (you fight for your freedom and the USA) The scenes were sad and the music made it sad too. I had no smile on my face while fighting the invading Russians throughout DC. In the DC levels you also see the black bags of soldiers (another tear from me). It wasn't just one lone bag unattended to, but many bags with wounded all around and the visual sadness of some of the soldiers. What I am trying to get at is not that the COD series should be exempt from the criticism for violence, but that it is in there to invoke emotion and a lot of the time it isn't to climb up a bell tower and just snipe people for giggles but to climb up a bell tower to protect your fellow brothers in arms and win the good fight.--Harrymd 13:27, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
As regards non-violent hobbies that make the actual acts significantly less appealing to the vast majority of people, that can be concomitant or a result of desensitization, which itself is a negative (and is not the same thing as crucifying a desire). You should be attracted to some things, and if a hunger is at least latent, then i would rather eat ice cream than watch someone else do so. But as advertising knows, such can also entice. Being able to resist such is a virtue. Daniel1212 15:55, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
But at this point, the justification for banning video games becomes entirely moral. No conservative should support the restriction of any constitutional right due to nanny state morality policing, especially when there is absolutely no harmful impact outside of those few anecdotal cases where video games have been (very loosely) connected to crimes. It's just like the government trying to restrict gun rights. The benefits of our gun rights far outweigh any supposed costs to society. Video games are the same way.FCapra 18:07, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Small correction

Hello, I hate to be a nit-picker, but the news item about the fall of the Dow today should read "The DJIA falls below even 12,000." EricAlstrom 19:38, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Great catch! Fixed.--Andy Schlafly 21:24, 2 August 2011 (EDT)