Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-03-24T21:25:50Z

Andyt: /* Questions */

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Abortion facts

2009-03-24T21:10:35Z

Andyt: Fixed bulleting

[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion|abortion]] requires accurate information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.

* A study by the Guttmacher Institute estimated that nearly 1.3 million abortions took place in the [[United States]] in 2002, equivalent to about 148 abortions per hour.<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref><ref>Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003, By Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, Guttmacher Institute, August 3, 2006, retreived 10/13/2008 [http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Estimates+of+U.S.+Abortion+Incidence%2C+2001%E2%80%932003&fr=ytff-&u=www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf&w=estimates+u.s.+abortion+incidence+2001+2003&d=JCOxxfReRc5I&icp=1&.intl=us]</ref><ref>1,287,000 abortions per year, divided by 365 days per year, divided by 24 hours per day, equals 146.9 abortions per day.</ref>
* When the number of abortions are included (as deaths of the unborn child), abortion was the most common cause of death in the [[United States]] in 2002. <ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref> (Heart disease, with 710,760 deaths, was a distant second.)

* Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>

* "Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic."<ref>Guttmacher Institute, ''Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States'', July 2008, retrieved 10/12/2008.[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#3] For this fact, Guttmacher cites Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, ''Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001'', Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226–235.</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

* ''"fetus: the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth."'' Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

== Arguments Against Abortion ==
{{cquote|
1. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life

2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease also increases.
}}
'''''These four arguments are taken from:'''''

"Ten Arguments For Abortion and Against Abortion, Abortion Pros and Cons, and Main Points of the Debate." By Linda Lowen, About.com
<ref>[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm Ten Arguments] About, Inc. </ref>

== Reasons for Abortions ==
Some countries only allow abortions under certain circumstances. The first two reasons are generally grounds for an abortion even in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and the third, though controversial, is also rather common. Below are some common reasons women have abortions:

* The child being the result of [[rape]] or [[incest]].
* Risk to the mother's health or life
* The child being born severely disabled, which may be criticised as a form of [[eugenics]]
* Inability to care for the child, in which case [[adoption]] poses a better alternative

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Henshaw
| Given1 = Stanley K.
| Surname2 = Kost
| Given2 = Kathryn
| Year = 1996
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2814096.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-09-08

== See also ==

*[[Harvard abortion study]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.unfairchoice.info/resources.htm Abortion Risks - Fact Sheets]
*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp Abortion Facts] By James D. Agresti. ''Just Facts.''
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008
*[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/tp/Ten-Abortion-Facts.htm Ten-Abortion-Facts]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness]

[[Category:Abortion]]

Absurdism

2009-03-24T20:51:14Z

Andyt: New page: '''Absurdism''' is a philosophy which asserts that it is humanly impossible (and therefore absurd) to find meaning in the universe because either such a meaning does not exist or canno...

'''Absurdism''' is a [[philosophy]] which asserts that it is humanly impossible (and therefore absurd) to find meaning in the universe because either such a meaning does not exist or cannot be reached by humanity (e.g. [[epistemic distance]]).

It is rather similar to [[existentialism]] and [[nihilism]] and derives from the work of the [[Danish]] philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]]. It was further developed by French philosopher [[Albert Camus]] in "The Myth of Sisyphus".

It was popular in [[France]] post-[[World War II]].

== The Meaning of Life ==
Absurdism claims that there are two possible explanations for the [[meaning of life]] - that it is meaningless, or to serve a higher power, such as [[God]]. However, absurdism then poses the question of what God's purpose is. Kierkegaard claimed God defies human understanding, and therefore faith in God is absurd (not in an [[atheism|atheistic]] sense, but claiming that deriving an explanation from that which cannot be understood serves no purpose), though Camus took a harsher view, calling faith in God "philosophical suicide". It is important to note, however, that Camus stated that absurdism leads to neither belief in God or denial of God - "I did not say 'excludes God', which would still amount to asserting".

Internet censorship

2009-03-24T20:37:25Z

Andyt:

'''Internet censorship''' is a form of [[censorship]] where a [[government]] restricts [[Internet]] users from accessing certain [[website|websites]] due to [[ideology|ideological]] differences or the content of the website being illegal in that country.

== United Kingdom ==
The [[Internet Watch Foundation]] maintains a list of websites containing [[child pornography]] that [[ISP|ISPs]] voluntarily subscribe to and block access to. Recently the IWF was criticised for blocking users from viewing the [[album cover]] for "Virgin Killer" by the [[German]] [[heavy metal]] band [[Scorpions]] on [[Wikipedia]], claiming it was child pornography. The block was removed several days later.

== United States ==
The [[Communications Decency Act]] of 1996 restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by children. Supporters of [[free speech]], however, had most of the act's provisions overturned.

== Denmark ==
[[Denmark]] operates a similar system to the [[United Kingdom]], however, it was criticised for a 2008 [[court order]] forcing the ISP Tele2 to block access to [[BitTorrent]] tracker [[ThePirateBay]].

== Finland ==
[[Finland]] operates another system similar to that of the UK, however, the [[blacklist]] is provided by Finnish police instead of maintained by representatives of the ISPs operating under a [[memorandum of understanding]] as is the case in the UK. It was criticised for filtering the website of the Internet standards organisation [[W3C]] and content, although [[pornographic]], is not actually child pornography.

== China ==
[[China]] blocks content supporting [[Tibetan independence]], [[Taiwanese independence]], [[police brutality]], the [[Tiananmen Square]] protests, [[freedom of speech]], [[pornography]] and certain religions (including the [[Catholic]] Church). 52 [[blog|bloggers]] are reportedly currently incarcerated for their writings.

== Afghanistan ==
Pervez Kambaksh, an Afghan student, was sentenced to [[death penalty|death]] in 2008 for downloading an article on [[women's rights]]. After international pressure, the sentence was commuted to 20 years imprisonment.

== "Enemies of the Internet" ==
In [[2008]] [[Reporters without Borders]] listed the following 15 countries as "enemies of the Internet" due to their aggressive forms of Internet censorship:

* [[Belarus]]
* [[Burma]]
* [[China]]
* [[Cuba]]
* [[Egypt]]
* [[Ethiopia]]
* [[Iran]]
* [[North Korea]]
* [[Saudi Arabia]]
* [[Syria]]
* [[Tunisia]]
* [[Turkmenistan]]
* [[Uzbekistan]]
* [[Vietnam]]
* [[Zimbabwe]]

Internet censorship

2009-03-24T20:36:54Z

Andyt: New page: '''Internet censorship''' is a form of censorship where a government restricts Internet users from accessing certain websites due to ideological differ...

'''Internet censorship''' is a form of [[censorship]] where a [[government]] restricts [[Internet]] users from accessing certain [[website|websites]] due to [[ideology|ideological]] differences or the content of the website being illegal in that country.

== United Kingdom ==
The [[Internet Watch Foundation]] maintains a list of websites containing [[child pornography]] that [[ISP|ISPs]] voluntarily subscribe to and block access to. Recently the IWF was criticised for blocking users from viewing the [[album cover]] for "Virgin Killer" by the [[German]] [[heavy metal]] band [[Scorpions]] on [[Wikipedia]], claiming it was child pornography. The block was removed several days later.

== United States ==
The [[Communications Decency Act]] of 1996 restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by children. Supporters of [[free speech]], however, had most of the act's provisions overturned.

== Denmark ==
[[Denmark]] operates a similar system to the [[United Kingdom]], however, it was criticised for a 2008 [[court order]] forcing the ISP Tele2 to block access to [[BitTorrent]] tracker [[ThePirateBay]].

== Finland ==
[[Finland]] operates another system similar to that of the UK, however, the [[blacklist]] is provided by Finnish police instead of maintained by representatives of the ISPs operating under a [[memorandum of understanding]] as is the case in the UK. It was criticised for filtering the website of the Internet standards organisation [[W3C]] and content, although [[pornographic]], is not actually child pornography.

== China ==
[[China]] blocks content supporting [[Tibetan independence]], [[Taiwanese independence]], [[police brutality]], the [[Tiananmen Square]] protests, [[freedom of speech]], [[pornography]] and certain religions (including the [[Catholic]] Church). 52 [[blog|bloggers]] are reportedly currently incarcerated for their writings.

== Afghanistan ==
Pervez Kambaksh, an Afghan student, was sentenced to [[death penalty|death]] in 2008 for downloading an article on [[women's rights]]. After international pressure, the sentence was commuted to 20 years imprisonment.

== "Enemies of the Internet ==
In [[2008]] [[Reporters without Borders]] listed the following 15 countries as "enemies of the Internet" due to their aggressive forms of Internet censorship:

* [[Belarus]]
* [[Burma]]
* [[China]]
* [[Cuba]]
* [[Egypt]]
* [[Ethiopia]]
* [[Iran]]
* [[North Korea]]
* [[Saudi Arabia]]
* [[Syria]]
* [[Tunisia]]
* [[Turkmenistan]]
* [[Uzbekistan]]
* [[Vietnam]]
* [[Zimbabwe]]

Censorship

2009-03-24T20:14:19Z

Andyt:

'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>

*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>

*the destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

*[[Internet censorship]] employed by a country, which can vary from the blocking of known [[child pornography]] sites such as in the [[UK]] to the filtering of anti-government sites in [[China]] or [[women's rights]] or anti-[[Islam]] sites in [[Middle East|Middle Eastern]] countries

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the most well-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the first amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabia prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]
*[[Liberal censorship]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]

ACLU

2009-03-24T20:10:20Z

Andyt:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]

The '''American Civil Liberties Union''' ('''ACLU''') is a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] [[organization]]. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. Baldwin supported communism, but later denounced it in his book, ''A New Slavery'', which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html]). This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] [[prayer]] and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

The ordinance defines "illegal aliens", fines property owners for renting to them, fines business owners for hiring them, and bars businesses from selling them merchandise. It also requires government documents to be in English only, and requires documents from residents to city officials to be in English. <ref>ACLU Press Release: Hazleton Residents Sue to Halt Harsh Anti-Immigrant Law, August 15, 2006, retrieved 10/14/08 [http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/hazletonresidentssuetohalt.htm]</ref>

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).
[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|left|300px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at [[City Hall|city hall]]. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

In the ACLU's quest to attack the Christian religion any chance it gets, they are suing in Alaska courts to remove the property tax exemption from church owned properties. <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_doesnt_want_to_pay_taxes_expects_churches_to_pay_them/ ACLU Doesn't Want to Pay Taxes; Expects Churches to Pay Them] The American Civil Rights Union</ref>

An Indiana judge has upheld the issuance of license plates bearing the message "In God We Trust," dismissing a constitutional challenge by the ACLU. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html Indiana Judge Dismisses ACLU Challenge, Upholds 'God' License Plate] AP, April 18, 2008</ref>

The ACLU persuaded the Ninth Circuit to forbid Congress from transferring a cross to private owners who would preserve it in the Mojave Desert, in Buono v. Kempthorne <ref>[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT] USCOURTS.GOV</ref>

The ACLU enlisted the Courts to have banned the private distribution of Bibles in public school. The federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling for the ACLU. Doe v. S. Iron R-1 Sch. Dist., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19818 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007).

The Seventh Circuit ruled against the ACLU by overturning "a lower court's decision that sectarian prayers on the floor of the (Indiana) House violated the constitutional separation of church and state."

The ACLU offers "talking points" in case someone asks why the ACLU hates Christmas so much: Their official response, "We work year-round to ensure that everyone in America has the freedom to practice their own religion (or no religion) and to keep the government out of religion." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686800,00.html No Ho Ho.] Time, November 21, 2007</ref>

A rural school district's long-standing practice of allowing the distribution of Bibles to grade school students is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled. For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis. The ACLU filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. <ref>[http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=27416&sec=36&cont=all Court Ends Bible Distribution in School] AP, January 9, 2008</ref>

==Censoring [[intelligent design|Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's [[core curriculum]], which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[intelligent design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

The ACLU also recently forced a Nampa, Idaho public library to return two books to the shelves that many parents have found objectionable. ''The Joy of Sex'' and ''The Joy of Gay Sex'' were the subjects of a two-year legal battle to get them removed after a teenager found one in his home within reach of young children. "''The Joy of Gay Sex'' contains very graphic, leave[s] nothing to the imagination [with] depictions of every variety of homosexual sex imaginable", said Bryan Fischer, one of the litigants to get the books removed. "It even has a chapter in it entitled 'Daddy/Son Fantasies.'" Other chapter titles include "Exhibitionism and Voyeurism," "Fisting," "Sex with Animals," and "Tearooms and Back Rooms." Referring to the ACLU's bullying tactics against the library, Fischer said "It's an abysmal state of affairs when a single letter from cultural thugs can undo two years of patient and pain-staking work." [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=244332]

==Same-sex Marriage==

The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Conspicuously Absent==

The ACLU is known for going after the [[U.S.]] government with absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, ACLU v. [[AT&T]] 2007. Though when it comes to actual data breaches and data abuse against a U.S. citizen, '''the ACLU is missing.''' Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. ''Joe the Plumber'', had his personal and confidential records investigated without reason, by Democratic officials in Ohio, "[[Big Brother]]". <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov21/0,4670,JoeThePlumberRecords,00.html 4 more punished over 'Joe the Plumber' searches] Fox News, November 21, 2008</ref> Honest speculation is that the ACLU consists of partisan Democrats and ''Joe the Plumber'' was a [[Republican]], during a presidential election season. Questions remain and we can only guess as to their reasoning, their silence is deafening.

==Abortion==

The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==

The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped—or not helped—in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights—unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a [[Day of silence|Day of Silence]] one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint"—but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

*A pro-Israel student at Columbia University was intimidated by a professor who silenced her rebuttal in class of his claim that the Israelis committed a massacre in Jenin, the ACLU refused to help defend her free speech. Apparently, the ACLU fevorishly defends the free speech for Islam, but Jewish and Christian free speech is irrelevent. <ref>[http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=449 ACLU Is AWOL On Free Speech] Conservativetruth.org, April 7, 2008</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==

The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

==Terrorism==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html U.S. Appeals Court in Ohio Dismisses Challenge of Bush Administration's Domestic Surveillance Program] AP, July 06, 2007</ref> Then the ACLU appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was also rejected. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/19/america-1-aclu-0/ America, 1. ACLU, 0.] Michelle Malkin, February 19, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program] AP, February 19, 2008</ref> In addition, the following describes the measures the ACLU has taken to weaken America in its fight with terrorists.

* Urging city councils across the United States to be non-compliant with the provisions of the [[Patriot Act]], which is an important tool to keep America safe from terrorism. <ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145 ACLU] DiscoverTheNetworks.org</ref>

* Endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004. Introduced by liberal Democrats in Congress, it is to roll back vital national-security policies that had been adopted after 9/11.

* Consistently opposed to all efforts of the US government to obtain information from terrorists it has captured, and to try [[terrorist]]s as "illegal enemy combatants." <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_wants_the_us_to_lose_the_war_on_terrorism/ ACLU Wants the US to Lose the War on Terrorism] The American Civil Rights Union, March 15, 2008</ref>

* Lobbied against any policy that would authorize security personnel at airports and border checkpoints to scrutinize travelers from terrorism-sponsoring nations

* Opposes the Computer-Assisted Passenger Profiling System (CAPPS) used by airlines to check for various passenger characteristics that have historically been correlated with terrorist activities

* Condemning the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations

* Held rallies on behalf of an Intel software engineer named Maher Mofeid Hawash, who U.S. officials were keeping in custody on suspicion that he had given material support to Taliban and al Qaeda forces fighting American troops in Afghanistan

* Passionately defended Sami Al-Arian, the former North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In an effort to thwart the U.S. government's investigation of Al-Arian's role in funding PIJ suicide bombings in Israel

* Came to the defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who in February 2005 was convicted on charges that she had illegally "facilitated and concealed communications" between her client, the incarcerated "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman, and members of his Egyptian terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, which has ties to al Qaeda

* The ACLU has launched a $8.5 million dollar effort to provide what are supposed to be "top notch" private counsel for the illegal enemy combatants facing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Among those to be provided this assistance is the man who has, apparently, confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks that took place on 9/11. <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_aiding_americas_enemies_again/ ACLU Aiding America's Enemies, Again] The American Civil Rights Union</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/the-aclu-assembles-a-terrorist-legal-defense-force-of-extraordinary-magnitude/ The ACLU assembles a terrorist legal defense force of extraordinary magnitude] Michelle Malkin, April 4, 2008</ref>

* ACLU lawyers had been present during interrogations of captured al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants who were being detained in Guantanamo Bay. These attorneys advised the inmates that they were under no obligation to answer military interrogators' questions

* ACLU attorney Noel Saleh "openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah."

* The INS and the Justice Department instituted a program requiring males visiting the U.S. from Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The ACLU cried "discriminatory."

* Extremist calls for violent [[jihad]] were not uncommon in America's mosques. An FBI anti-terrorism initiative to count and document all mosques was again met with protests from the ACLU.

The ACLU's affiliations with terrorists are not restricted solely to foreigners. For instance, the organization named unrepentant [[Domestic terrorism|domestic terrorist]] [[Bill Ayers]] to its advisory board along with his wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]].

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==
*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Nadine Strossen]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

National Health Service

2009-03-22T16:07:50Z

Andyt: Added reference

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalised [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal taxation comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in [[England]], with the fee in [[Scotland]] being slightly lower. Prescriptions are entirely free of charge in [[Wales]]<ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_508</ref>. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to consequences such as lengthy waiting lists for surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. However, it is noteworthy that when individuals are surveyed regarding their own experience of the NHS, the vast majority report positive experiences.

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World war II|war]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters can see that it works well. Even [[Margaret Thatcher]] worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient. <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref> Currently the Conservative website attacks the Labour party because they feel it is underinvesting in the health service.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]

Conservative

2009-03-22T16:04:27Z

Andyt:

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values. A conservative would likely agree with the statement in [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].<ref>In addition, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

== Conservatives in the United States ==

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Due to the massive diversity and size of the US, the precise definition of a "conservative" differs from state to state. That is, what is considered "conservative" in liberal [[New England]] is not the same as "conservative" in the Deep South.
It has been argued that the US simply has two Republican parties divided by the issue of abortion.

Conservatives tend to support the following ideals, however, this does vary vastly and those who support many of these would be better categorised as the [[Religious Right]] than simply "conservatives":

* Return of prayer in school
* Prohibition of abortion
* Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
* Support of laws against pornography
* Support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
* Generally opposed to the United Nations
* Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Support tightening of border security
* Respect for our military... past and present
* Literal interpretation of the [[Bible]] and rejection of [[evolutionism]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
* Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
* A strong national defense

Every so often a conservative has been elected president of the United States. All presidents combine some liberal and some conservative elements, as well as some policies that do not fit into categories.

In the last 125 years the most prominent conservative presidents include:

*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
*[[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)

Other influential figures in the conservative ideology and movement within the past 125 years include:

*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to [[Lyndon Johnson]]
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Pat Buchanan]] - Popular [[paleoconservative]] figure and occasional presidential candidate
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - [[British]] prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Ronald Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] [[economist]], influential during Reagan administration
*[[Arthur Laffer]] - Reagan [[supply-side]] economist (after which the [[Laffer curve]] is named)

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[Fox News]], [[NewsMax]], and [[WorldNetDaily]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

However, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterised by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref> Conservativism in the UK tends to be considerably more liberal than in America, and it is often argued that it is actually more liberal than the traditionally [[socialist]] [[Labour Party]].

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterised it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support amongst the party's grassroots membership, although the party does have several gay politicians) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]

{{Conservatism}}

9/11 conspiracy theories

2009-03-22T15:58:55Z

Andyt: Removed "crazy", unfair labeling.

'''9/11 conspiracy theories''' are claims that the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] did not happen in the way they are traditionally thought to have happened. Most theories state that, in one way or another, the [[United States]] government attacked its own country (which it would never do).

The evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists, also known as "[[9/11 truthers]]" has been widely debunked by many famous researchers and even some 9/11 sympathizers. Some information about specific theories is provided here.

Most people reject these theories. Even liberal socialist activist [[Noam Chomsky]] denies that the government knew about the attacks although he did criticize them for not acting on intelligence they had.

==World trade Center #7==
There are claims that WTC #7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. Supporters of this theory show photographs of the building from a misleading angle (it omits the smoke that seemed to pour out of the building due to fires inside). Many more photos exist that show massive fires burned throughout the building.

Some quote an owner of WTC #7 as saying they demolished the building. These people say that when he said in an interview that they decided to "pull" the building, he meant demolish. However, in this instance, "pull" does not mean demolish; it means to pull-out.

==Black smoke==
Black smoke was seen coming out of WTC #7 and other places on 9/11. A common conspiracy theory says that black smoke means that a fire is starved of oxygen, and therefore can easily be put out. It is said that the firefighters did not attempt to put out the fire, in this case. In the past, this might have been true, but petroleum burns very hot and is difficult to put out, and yet it also gives off black smoke. There was probably petroleum in the seventh tower.

==See Also==
Popular Mechanics, ''Debunking the 9/11 Myths'' [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Conspiracy Theory]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2009-03-22T15:58:16Z

Andyt:

Research by the [[scientific establishment]] into the '''causes of homosexuality''' frequently assumes a philosophy of [[determinism]], treating [[homosexuality]] as an identity or orientation which is "formed", rather than a behavior which is chosen.

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century and below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality.

The hypothalamus, a tiny section of the human brain which controls anger, temperature, fatigue, hunger and thirst and circadian cycles is also responsible for development of the brain. For a reason as yet unknown, different sections of the hypothalamus can recieve different levels of [[testosterone]], the [[hormone]] responsible for masculine development. A high level of testosterone in one particular section therefore results in girls becoming "tomboys" with a low level resulting in femininity. A second section causes the development of [[sexuality]], with abnormal levels resulting in homosexuality. It has been alleged that highly illegal - not to mention unethical - medical experiments on fetuses have been carried out in [[Russia]] which confirmed this.

==Homosexuality Research and the Causes of Homosexuality==
[[Homosexuality Research|Homosexuality research]] in regards to the causes of [[homosexuality]]:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]

==See Also==
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality?

2009-03-22T15:45:27Z

Andyt: /* Patent nonsense */ new section

I'm not sure how name-changing is done, but this should probably be called Mystery:Why do...., unless it's converted to an article, eg. "Why people choose homosexuality." Good info in any case. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, I was just adding, this bit:

Can someone put the "Mystery:" tag in front of this? Also, if anyone has any ideas or can add to what I wrote, please do. I feel my guesses do not give sufficient reason for anyone to be ignorant enough to actually make this choice.

I realized that I didn't have a mystery tag out front. Good eye. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 17:07, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Ug, quote box, fixed [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 17:08, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Patent nonsense ==

Nothing in this article is even remotely true. There is a reason for homosexuality, it's called the hypothalamus.

Nuremberg defense

2009-03-22T15:32:17Z

Andyt: Redirecting to Nuremberg Defense

#REDIRECT [[Nuremberg_Defense]]

Nuremberg Defense

2009-03-22T15:32:03Z

Andyt:

The '''Nuremberg Defense''' was a [[legal defense|defense]] used during the [[Nuremberg Trials]] by several [[Nazi]] [[war crimes|war criminals]].

It essentially argues that the defendant cannot be held responsible for his actions as he was only "following orders". It is generally not accepted as a legitimate defense provided the defendant had a clear [[moral choice]] and an actual ability to refuse to carry out illegal orders, which under a [[totalitarian]] state such as [[Nazi Germany]] would probably just result in the individual being executed for insubordination.

[[William Calley]] also used the defense during his [[court-martial]] after the [[My Lai Massacre]].

[[Category:Law]]

Nuremberg defense

2009-03-22T15:26:46Z

Andyt: New page: The '''Nuremberg Defense''' was a defense used during the Nuremberg Trials by several Nazi war criminals. It essentially argues that the defendant...

Environmentalist

2009-03-22T15:21:41Z

Andyt: /* The Bible and Environmentalism */

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Environmentalist | Previous Breaking News: Environmentalist]]
|}

'''Environmentalists''' are concerned with "protecting" the environment instead of letting human beings take dominion over it. Going way beyond [[conservationism]], they seek legal limitations on human use of the Earth's natural environment and resources. Media reporting usually blurs the distinction between "no-use" environmentalism and "wise-use" conservation.

[[David Gelernter]] wrote:
*Passionate environmentalists reject the proposition that love of nature is ennobling because loving nature is good for human dignity and happiness. They flirt instead with a worldview in which human beings are a species on a par with every other, and nature is to be protected not because you damage other people’s happiness when you destroy it wantonly but because nature itself has rights to assert against man. The Smithsonian, for example, posted a label in its Museum of Natural History apologizing for a display in which “humans are treated as more important than other mammals.” [http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_the_immorality.html]

==Forest fires and "saving" trees==

In June 2007 residents of Lake Tahoe California were furious at environmentalists and the grip they hold on government regulators who refused to allow the clearing of dead trees. 1,300 homes sustained damage, and the newly homeless victims blamed the special interest environmentalists for their woes.

The amount of fuel in the Tahoe Basin reached critical levels after years of discord among environmentalists and government agencies over how to thin forests and reduce the fire threat. And it has led to predictions of a devastating wildfire because the basin is one of the areas with the most fire starts in the Sierra Nevada. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-clearance26jun26,0,2914697.story?coll=la-home-center Crowd aims fury at regional panel], Land use agency is criticized for failing to allow adequate clearing of combustible materials. By Eric Bailey and J. Michael Kennedy, ''Los Angelas Times'', June 26, 2007.</ref>

==Animal rights and vegetarians==

Citing a heretofore unknown connection between the environment, [[animal rights]], and [[vegetarianism]] movements, [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA) requested of [[Democratic]] Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] special treatment in administration of tax laws used to support ecological sustainability. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk alleges, "[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer [[greenhouse-gas]] emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters," and that vegetarians should receive a tax break "just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break."

Asked how would the government certify the special interest tax break would go to vegetarians only, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, "I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/peta-seeks-tax-breaks-for-vegetarians-2007-05-31.html PETA seeks tax breaks for vegetarians], By Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', May 31, 2007.</ref>

==Worship of Gaia==
The environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban [[Atheism|atheists]] and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:
{{Cquote|The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. <ref>[[Michael Crichton]], [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html Environmentalism as Religion]," Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003. </ref>}}

Former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]] sees a "spiritual crisis" in [[global warming]]. <ref>[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050607.01B.gore.35aecd4.html Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming], Anton Caputo, ''San Antonio Express News'', 05/05/2007. </ref> He also believes that [[goddess]] worship is a better and more legitimate spiritual belief than [[Christianity]] and that the life of human beings is comparable to that of trees.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45581</ref> British biologist James Lovelock <ref>*James Lovelock, [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1738945,00.html ''Revenge of Gaia''], Publisher: Allen Lane, 02/02/2006. ISBN13: 9780713999143 </ref> first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism. <ref>[http://www.tcrnews2.com/gennewage.html Eco-spirituality, eco-feminism, global spirituality, ecological theology, creation spirituality, the new cosmology] </ref> Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion. <ref>Cliff Kincaid, [http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html ''Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia''], (1999). </ref>

[[Reid Bryson|Dr. Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and is known as the father of scientific climatology says of global warming:
{{Cquote|It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts. <ref>[http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613 Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey], Samara Kalk Derby, ''The Capital Times'', 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

==The Bible and Environmentalism==
{{Cquote|And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28}}

Many Christians have looked to this passage to justify their use of the gifts God has left us in and on the Earth. [[Farming]], [[fishing]], [[mining]], [[oil drilling]], [[hunting]], [[industry]], and the like are all examples of human beings making the most of our dominion, converting it into glorious products that help our fellow man. Products like [[medicine]], [[shelter]], and [[food]] satisfy the basic needs of mankind, while other products make a life serving God easier and more effective.

However, other Christians interpret this as [[stewardship]], the belief that human beings are "caretakers" of the Earth.

==See Also==
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Environmentalist|Examples of Environmentalism from previous "Breaking News" articles]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Liberal Christianity

2009-03-22T15:14:14Z

Andyt:

'''Liberal Christianity''' refers to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the [[Bible]] as the ''witness'' of [[God]] rather than the ''word'' of God. Strangely the view is supported by a rather ''literal'' - though this should not be confused with the form of [[Biblical literalism]] found in fundamentalist and conservative churches - interpretation of the words of Paul in his second letter to Timothy:

{{Bible quote|All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,...|book=2_Timothy|chap=3|verses=16}}

Here Paul supports the view that scripture is a direct result of the authors contact with God ("witness") whilst stopping short of claiming actual divine authorship ("word"). [[Conservative Christianity|Conservative Christians]] would answer that the Bible records God's promise to preserve His words, not merely His ideas.<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp God's promise to preserve His Word]</ref>

As a result Liberal Theologians view the Bible as a text to be [[hermeneutics|interpreted]] in its [[history|historical]] context through critical analysis.<ref>http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm</ref> Examples include some churches within [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodism|Methodist]], [[Presbyterian]], and [[United Church of Christ]] churches.<ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8028_1.html ''What Liberal Protestants Believe''] Beliefnet. Accessed 15 March 2008</ref> The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to any political agenda or set of beliefs, although liberal theological beliefs will often form the basis of liberal political beliefs.

As a further result, liberal Christians tend to take a [[Cafeteria Christianity|pick-and-choose]] approach to the Bible, declaring that those passages that they like were intended by God to be followed today, while other parts are outdated or need to be interpreted correctly. Many liberal Christians believe that the Bible was [[Documentary Hypothesis|combined from multiple sources]]<ref>[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html Documentary Hypothesis]</ref> or even that certain parts of the Bible that do not agree with liberal theology are later additions that do not belong in the Bible at all.<ref>[http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp Is it true that 1 John 5:7...?]</ref> In extreme cases, some liberal Christians even engage in [[politically correct]] [[censorship]] against those who quote Bible verses that tend to disprove a liberal Christian position.

===Economic and historical aspects===
In terms of economics, liberal Christianity grossly oversimplifies New Testament [[eschatology]] towards the [[Kingdom of God]] into the liberal "law of progress." History does indeed show a growing maturity in technology, thought, and social relations, but there is nothing within the academy's forces of history or its figures of history to suggest that good triumphs over evil. [[Bomb|Bombs]], [[NAFTA]], and [[feminism]] are indeed evidence of the [[liberal]] law of progress, but in so far as these things are merely the will of man, their development involves [[sin]], i.e. evil triumphing over good.<ref> ''Basic idea for this paragraph is from'' April 26, 1939 ''The Christian Century'', Reinhold Niebuhr, "Ten Years That Shook My World", pages 542-546 </ref> A quote from the [[liberal]] Christian scholar Edgar S. Brightman provides an example of this sort of thinking: "I believe in God because I believe that history represents a steady, moral progress." This was turned around by the [[neo-orthodoxy|neo-orthodox]] scholar Langdon Gilkey when he stated "I believe in God because to me history precisely does not represent such a progress."<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3049-2004Nov21.html Washingtonpost Obit of Langdon Gilkey] </ref>
Also, liberal Christian economic theories tend to place undue emphasis on selected portions of Scripture, such as [[the parable of the sheep and the goats]] and other passages on [[charity]], while ignoring other Scripture passages that do not support economic liberalism.

===Liberal Christianity's Anti-Semitism===
In ''American Protestantism and a Jewish State'' (1973) an Israeli government official [[Hertzel Fishman]] analyzed several years (1937-1967) worth of ''[[Christian Century]]'' and concluded that the magazine is [[Anti-Semitism|Anti-Semitic]], stating (quote taken from Rausch) "[[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Protestanism]] consistently and historically opposed a Jewish State in Palestine, obstructed immigration of Jewish refugees, minimized the Holocaust, tried to reduce Israel's boundaries and supported Arab 'rights'." Although Dr. Fishman found instances of the magazine denouncing individual acts of anti-semitism, he found that the magazine was consistent in its intolerance and opposition to collective acts of a Jewish "peoplehood."<ref>''[http://books.google.com/books?id=-BPjHQAACAAJ Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions]'', [[David A. Rausch]], Edwin Mellen Press, 1979, ISBN 9-88946-875-3, ISBN 0-88946-976-8, page 23-25 </ref> In this sense and in theological senses, the modern [[Coptic Church]] is part of liberal Christianity. The ''Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism'' is a document written and endorsed by several [[liberal]] Christian churches. <ref> [http://www.pcusa.org/peacemaking/jerusalemdeclaration.pdf ''Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism''] </ref>

A representative example of such liberal Anti-Semitism was found as recently as 1954 in a [[World Council of Churches]] report:
{{cquote|In view of the grievous guilt of Christian people towards the Jews throughout the history of the Church, we are certain that the Church cannot rest until the title of Christ to the Kingdom is recognized by His own people according to the flesh.<ref>''The Evanston Report: The Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches, 1954'', New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955, p.327</ref><ref>''Uncivil Religion: Interreligious Hostility in America'' (Part I: Jewish-Christian Tensions pp.1-37), [[Robert N. Bellah]] and Frederick E. Greenspahn (Eds.), 1987, New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, pp.3-4</ref>
}}

===Origins of liberal Christianity===
Liberal Christian theology is the result of these three 19th century theologians: [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]], [[Albrecht Ritschl]], and [[Hegel]]. Their work and that of others who followed them was a response to 19th century scientific interpretations that seemed to question the validity of many basic Christian doctrines: [[Doctrine of Creation|doctrine of creation]], [[Incarnation|doctrine of Incarnation]], [[eternal life|doctrine of eternal life]], etc. Schleiermacher sought to re-establish the authority of the doctrines using Christian religious experience rather than scientific knowledge. Ritschl rejected Schleirmacher's idea and tried to re-establish their authority using [[Kant]]'s idea of moral experience and in the fulfillment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. Hegel simply tried to re-establish their authority by basing Christian [[Faith]] on rational and philosophical inquiry.<ref> ''Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language'', [[Langdon Gilkey]], Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969, 73, 74, and 75 </ref> Doctrines that couldn't follow one of these three new theological paths—religious experience, moral experience, or philosophical inquiry— tended to disappear. The first-quarter 20th century [[neo-orthodoxy]] movement was a renewal of Christian doctrines that had been neglected by liberal Christianity within the American and European academy. At the [[heart]] of the neo-orthodox renewal appeals to symbolic and aesthetic interpretations of long forgotten Christian doctrines can found in the works of [[Karl Barth]], the Niebuhr brothers, and [[Paul Tillich]].

==See also==
* [[Shoah]]
* [[Gerhard Kittel]]

==External Links==
*[http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm Modern Theological Liberalism]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}
[[Category:Christian Movements]]

{{template:liberalism}}

Abortion facts

2009-03-22T15:06:45Z

Andyt:

[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion|abortion]] requires accurate information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.

* A study by the Guttmacher Institute estimated that nearly 1.3 million abortions took place in the [[United States]] in 2002, equivalent to about 148 abortions per hour.<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref><ref>Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003, By Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, Guttmacher Institute, August 3, 2006, retreived 10/13/2008 [http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Estimates+of+U.S.+Abortion+Incidence%2C+2001%E2%80%932003&fr=ytff-&u=www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf&w=estimates+u.s.+abortion+incidence+2001+2003&d=JCOxxfReRc5I&icp=1&.intl=us]</ref><ref>1,287,000 abortions per year, divided by 365 days per year, divided by 24 hours per day, equals 146.9 abortions per day.</ref>
* When the number of abortions are included (as deaths of the unborn child), abortion was the most common cause of death in the [[United States]] in 2002. <ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref> (Heart disease, with 710,760 deaths, was a distant second.)

* Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>

* "Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic."<ref>Guttmacher Institute, ''Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States'', July 2008, retrieved 10/12/2008.[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#3] For this fact, Guttmacher cites Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, ''Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001'', Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226–235.</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

* ''"fetus: the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth."'' Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

== Arguments Against Abortion ==
{{cquote|
1. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life

2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease also increases.
}}
'''''These four arguments are taken from:'''''

"Ten Arguments For Abortion and Against Abortion, Abortion Pros and Cons, and Main Points of the Debate." By Linda Lowen, About.com
<ref>[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm Ten Arguments] About, Inc. </ref>

== Reasons for Abortions ==
Some countries only allow abortions under certain circumstances. The first two reasons are generally grounds for an abortion even in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and the third, though controversial, is also rather common. Below are some common reasons women have abortions:

* The child being the result of [[rape]] or [[incest]].
* Risk to the mother's health or life
* The child being born severely disabled, which may be criticised as a form of [[eugenics]]
* Inability to care for the child, in which case [[adoption]] poses a better alternative

In addition, a ban on abortion may force a woman desperate for one to a [[backstreet abortionist]], which poses massive health risks.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Henshaw
| Given1 = Stanley K.
| Surname2 = Kost
| Given2 = Kathryn
| Year = 1996
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2814096.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-09-08

== See also ==

*[[Harvard abortion study]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.unfairchoice.info/resources.htm Abortion Risks - Fact Sheets]
*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp Abortion Facts] By James D. Agresti. ''Just Facts.''
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008
*[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/tp/Ten-Abortion-Facts.htm Ten-Abortion-Facts]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness]

[[Category:Abortion]]

Abortion facts

2009-03-22T15:04:06Z

Andyt:

[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion|abortion]] requires accurate information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.

*A study by the Guttmacher Institute estimated that nearly 1.3 million abortions took place in the [[United States]] in 2002, equivalent to about 148 abortions per hour.<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref><ref>Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003, By Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, Guttmacher Institute, August 3, 2006, retreived 10/13/2008 [http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Estimates+of+U.S.+Abortion+Incidence%2C+2001%E2%80%932003&fr=ytff-&u=www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf&w=estimates+u.s.+abortion+incidence+2001+2003&d=JCOxxfReRc5I&icp=1&.intl=us]</ref><ref>1,287,000 abortions per year, divided by 365 days per year, divided by 24 hours per day, equals 146.9 abortions per day.</ref>
* When the number of abortions are included (as deaths of the unborn child), abortion was the most common cause of death in the [[United States]] in 2002. <ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref> (Heart disease, with 710,760 deaths, was a distant second.)

*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>

*"Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic."<ref>Guttmacher Institute, ''Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States'', July 2008, retrieved 10/12/2008.[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#3] For this fact, Guttmacher cites Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, ''Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001'', Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226–235.</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

* ''"fetus: the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth."'' Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

== Arguments Against Abortion ==
{{cquote|
1. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life

2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease also increases.
}}
'''''These four arguments are taken from:'''''

"Ten Arguments For Abortion and Against Abortion, Abortion Pros and Cons, and Main Points of the Debate." By Linda Lowen, About.com
<ref>[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm Ten Arguments] About, Inc. </ref>

== Reasons for Abortions ==
Some countries only allow abortions under certain circumstances. The first two reasons are generally grounds for an abortion even in countries with restrictive abortion laws, and the third, though controversial, is also rather common. Below are some common reasons women have abortions:

- The child being the result of [[rape]] or [[incest]].
- Risk to the mother's health or life
- The child being born severely disabled, which may be criticised as a form of [[eugenics]]
- Inability to care for the child, in which case [[adoption]] poses a better alternative

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Henshaw
| Given1 = Stanley K.
| Surname2 = Kost
| Given2 = Kathryn
| Year = 1996
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2814096.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-09-08

== See also ==

*[[Harvard abortion study]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.unfairchoice.info/resources.htm Abortion Risks - Fact Sheets]
*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp Abortion Facts] By James D. Agresti. ''Just Facts.''
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008
*[http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/tp/Ten-Abortion-Facts.htm Ten-Abortion-Facts]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness]

[[Category:Abortion]]

Pro-life

2009-03-22T14:56:42Z

Andyt:

{{uncited}}

'''Pro-life''' is the name given to people or organizations who defend the rights of the unborn child, and who oppose [[abortion]].

While "pro-abortion" seems to be an accurate term for those who support [[tax]]payer-funded abortion, [[pro-choice]] is the term that describes the feelings of the majority of [[liberal]]s, and by which they would prefer to be called.

Rather like the term "[[pro-choice]]", it may be considered a loaded term, as it implies that a [[fetus]] is considered to be a full human life, something which depends upon the definition of [[personhood]].

Due to rulings by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the [[United States]] allows abortions at virtually any time in pregnancy. Many state [[government]]s even pay for abortions using taxpayer dollars, usually due to a court order rather than the will of the people.

In [[America]]n politics, the [[Republican Party|Republican]] and [[Constitution Party|Constitution]] Parties are strongly opposed to abortion and believe it should be illegal. The [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Party supports abortion and opposes legal restrictions. Leaders in the Democratic Party, such as its presidential candidates, also support taxpayer-funded abortion.

The phrase "pro-life," especially in the [[Catholic Church]], may include other issues relating to human life, such as [[euthanasia]] and the [[death penalty]].

==See Also==
*[[Abortion controversy]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]

[[Category:Abortion]]

Pro-abortion

2009-03-22T14:54:58Z

Andyt:

The '''"pro-choice"''' position in the [[abortion debate]], as opposed to [[pro-life]], maintains that the decision to give birth is entirely a personal one for the mother, literally a "matter of choice" with no one else, including the father or child, having a say. A doctor may advise, but only in a limited capacity. He ought not try to influence the pregnant woman, even if she's just a girl. He should not inform her about the long-term medical harms of the operation, or the emotional or social consequences, but simply let her make up her own mind. Advocates justify this position with the materialistic idea that a human being does not exist until after his complete birth (see [[partial-birth abortion]]).

It is a rather loaded term which implies anyone disagreeing with it must be against the ideas of [[freedom]] and personal choice. The term is deceptive by deflecting or glossing-over the true meaning. Advocates use the misleading term ''pro-choice'' to promote [[abortion]]; by implying that it means pro-''informed'' choice, when in fact some pro-choice supporters oppose informing women about the long-term medical harms of the operation. The label can be stated as '''pro-"choice"''', with quotation marks, to reflect a lack of support by the person of ''informed'' choice.

[[Planned Parenthood]] performs nearly 200 abortions for every referral for adoption.

The more accurate term for people and organizations who support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], or otherwise promote [[abortion]], is ''[[pro-abortion]]''.

==See Also==
* [[Pro-life]]
* [[Abortion controversy]]
* [[Planned Parenthood]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.ippf.org/ Planned Parenthood]
* [http://www.bpas.org British Pregnancy Advisory Service]

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[category:deceit]]

Blood libel

2009-03-22T14:52:07Z

Andyt:

The '''blood libel''' is the superstitious belief that [[Jewish]] people needed the blood of [[Christian]] babies for varied reasons. The [[Papacy]] has formally declared the blood libel to be untrue, and it no longer persists in the [[West]]. Indeed, many children venerated as Christian [[martyr|martyrs]] have been decanonised. However, the blood libel has resurfaced in Islamic countries, and is even taught in Madrasahs in [[Saudi Arabia]]. [[Syria]], Saudi Arabia, [[Iran]], and [[Egypt]] have all had recent reports of the blood libel being promoted in books and/or state sponsored media.

It originated first in the writings of the Graeco-Egyptian sophist and grammarian Apion, who alleged that Jews sacrificed Greeks in the Temple of Jerusalem. Later, the murder of [[Saint William of Norwich]] was blamed upon the local Jewish community, though a [[Sheriff]] intervened at the indictment of a group of suspects. The murder was never solved.

Some [[Roman|Romans]], prior to the rule of [[Constantine I]] and the general acceptance of Christianity, took exception to the ritual of the [[Eucharist]], believing that they literally drank blood instead of [[transubstantiation|transubstantiated]] wine. This was used in [[propaganda]] used to advocate the [[persecution of Christians]].

A kind of blood libel is also alleged to take place in [[China]]. It was claimed that doctors who perform [[abortion|abortions]] ate human foetuses. It was investigated by [[Senator]] [[Jesse Helms]], and was used by several [[pro-life]] campaigns.

[[category:Anti-Semitic Myth]]

National Health Service

2009-03-22T14:35:20Z

Andyt:

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalised [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal taxation comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in England, however this does not apply in Scotland and Wales. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to consequences such as lengthy waiting lists for surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. However, it is noteworthy that when individuals are surveyed regarding their own experience of the NHS, the vast majority report positive experiences.

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World war II|war]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters can see that it works well. Even [[Margaret Thatcher]] worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient. <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref> Currently the Conservative website attacks the Labour party because they feel it is underinvesting in the health service.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]