Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Michelle Obama

2013-03-02T18:41:08Z

BWWTammy: /* Millitant Racism Section */ new section

A good balanced rational article, tho' it does need more information.

==Second paragraph==
As stands, it is

"Born and raised on the south side of Chicago, Michelle Obama's roots, has a complex path from Slavery: Fraser Robinson III (died in 1991) and his wife, Marian are the parents of Michelle; they got married in 1960; Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady... the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency. [1] (Dolphus Shields was a very light skinned, church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town.) Some of Michelle's relatives still reside in South Carolina."

To me this is confusing and gets in the way of the article. Can someone who understands exactly what this paragraph is saying create a more clear version?
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 17:51, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

==Court Ordered Inactive Status by a Disciplinary Agency==
Was Michelle Obama disbarred? [http://community2.myfoxorlando.com/_Obamas-Wife-Disbarred/BLOG/293883/72667.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:22, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

== "Savior" in Bold ==

Why is the word "savior" in bold? It seems clear that the quote explicitly warns against viewing any one person (including Obama) as a savior. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 22:37, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

== Fashion Disaster? ==

Perhaps you might want to cite some of the "fashion disaster" claims, especially since her favorite designer has done quite well since Michelle became first lady. Also, if you're going to argue that she is a fashion disaster, then you might not want to do it next to a picture of her looking fashionable and stately! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:44, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
:You may think that Michelle looks fashionable and stately, most people disagree. Anyway, added refs and a new pic.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:52, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
:I don't have an opinion on her fashion either way, but this does seem opinion-driven, and I can't find all the claims in the refs. Could someone who does care about this cite them individually, or select phrases that were actually used in articles? I just think it takes away from the weight of the more substantial claims on the page if we have uncited opinions on her fashion [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 18:00, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

== Santeria ==

This "fact" was never proven by any reputable sources...seeing as it could be extremely libelous (and likely is) I removed it. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:10, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

== Staff ==

"American taxpayers are shelling out a staggering total of $1,591,200 annually for the First Lady’s 22 member personal staff." Why "staggering"? It's roughly in line with the amounts spent for the staffs of other recent First Ladies. [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 08:45, 28 December 2012 (EST)
:Did most of the other First Ladies inveigle against "Whitey"? Were they proud of their country "Finally"? Or had they always been proud of their country? [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 10:11, 28 December 2012 (EST)
::Hi, Dan! I'd be happy to buy you a dictionary so you could learn the meaning of the word "relevant". As a bonus, you could find out that "inveigle" is not a word at all. Good day, now! [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 10:33, 28 December 2012 (EST)

==Marriage date==

This article says the Obama's were married in 1992 while [http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama#Personal_Life Barack article] says 1982. Which is it? [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 23:25, 19 January 2013 (EST)
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-anniversary-20-years-married_n_1935840.html 1992] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:49, 19 January 2013 (EST)

== Millitant Racism Section ==

The interpretation of this section makes no sense whatsoever. She's talking about not feeling a sense of belonging at Princeton. Isn't that a universal feeling that you should not attack her for?

Talk:Jesus Christ

2013-03-02T18:35:37Z

BWWTammy: /* Truth and verifiability */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
::What's your proof? Believe me, I don't care. I don't believe in this.

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] I would disagree with you but you don't exist and I see no proof that you do. When you can prove you exist then I'll listen to what you have to say - that is if you existed.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|Rickswartzentrover]] 20:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

I don't believe that UFOs exist but I don't spend hours trying to convince others that UFO's don't exist - Why because I don't HATE UFOs, I simply don't believe they exist. See all the so-called Atheists know that God exists and they are scared to death, that is why they spend all their time trying to convince themselves that he doesn't exist. Show me a Atheist and I'll show you a God-hating Christaphobic bigot.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|Rickswartzentrover]] 21:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This website has no auspices of objectivity it's simply a propaganda tool, I'm ashamed at you Conservapedia. I'm a conservative AND an Atheist, but you would rather deny that I exist, while propagating these myths.

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:Because all the admins on this sight are half-blind. [[User:BWWTammy|BWWTammy]] 13:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement [http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==
<references />

== Clarify first paragraph? ==

The end of the first paragraph says, "Jesus then personally set the ultimate example for mankind by triumphing over the greatest evil imaginable, the Roman scourging and crucifixion." It reads as if the greatest evils imaginable were scourging and crucifixion, which of course is untrue. I suggest, "Jesus triumped over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

== According to the bible ==

I understand this is a very Christian place, however would it be possible to add a "according to the Bible" to the start of the page? [[User:RileyS|RileyS]] 09:51, 15 November 2011 (EST)
:You can ask an Administrator to unprotect it for you. You could ask [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] about it. Again, please sign your comments like I told you.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)
::The answer is NO. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:53, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Interesting observation ==

According to the Bible, Jesus himself was a very liberal man. Were he alive today, he would most likely follow some form of socialism. He, as I'm sure most of you well know, was in support of tolerance of differences (something which most social conservatives today aren't), and complete peace (something which most political conservatives today aren't). Both of those are core pillars in most forms of socialism. He also demonstrated that he was in favour of free healthcare, which was shown by his healing of many people. I can't recall all the passages, but there were also several references in the Bible to wealth redistribution, most of them in the New Testament (if I recall correctly). There's the "camel through the eye of a needle" story, as well as "to whom much is given, much is required."

It is ironic that most conservatives biggest role model is the world's most famous liberal. Even more ironic that these people don't follow the man's inspiring words.

This should be mentioned in the article somewhere, for it is too great an issue to ignore. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 15:17, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::Please note that this is not an objective fact. This is ''Your'' interpretation of the Bible.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:::^. In addition, you should rely on the Conservapedia Translation project of the bible rather than a version that is possibly tainted by liberal bias. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::::: The Conservapedia interpretation of the Bible is as valid as my own. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 21:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)

== Can be opened for posting? ==

Would someone enter this posting with the title , "Jesus through the Fabric of our Lives", under External Links? - http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/jesus-through-fabric-of-our-lives.html ? Thanks you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 10:05, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Or, can someone make it possible for me to do the posting? either way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 09:45, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 10:44, 22 November 2012 (EST)

If your blog has sufficient merit to be included in the external links, someone else will select it for inclusion. Please read, [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] number 5. Sorry, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:52, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2013-03-02T18:31:30Z

BWWTammy: /* God doesn't exist */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== God doesn't exist ==
Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.
:You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.
J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !
:Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
::What's your proof? Believe me, I don't care. I don't believe in this.

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Niffed|Niffed]] I would disagree with you but you don't exist and I see no proof that you do. When you can prove you exist then I'll listen to what you have to say - that is if you existed.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|Rickswartzentrover]] 20:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. [[User:AnAtheist|AnAtheist]] 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.

I don't believe that UFOs exist but I don't spend hours trying to convince others that UFO's don't exist - Why because I don't HATE UFOs, I simply don't believe they exist. See all the so-called Atheists know that God exists and they are scared to death, that is why they spend all their time trying to convince themselves that he doesn't exist. Show me a Atheist and I'll show you a God-hating Christaphobic bigot.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|Rickswartzentrover]] 21:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:Wikipediaisbetter]]
:Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This website has no auspices of objectivity it's simply a propaganda tool, I'm ashamed at you Conservapedia. I'm a conservative AND an Atheist, but you would rather deny that I exist, while propagating these myths.

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>
:When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--[[User:Xodion|Xodion]] 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

:Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other people in the Bible name Jesus ==

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lead ==
I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
:Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
:I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
:--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
:My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
:When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::''Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."'' (John 19:18-19, 21)
::What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
:As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm useful text]. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus was Jewish! ==

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. {{unsigned|Newsdan}}

:That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --[[User:Newsdan|Newsdan]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory Paragraph ==

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

:You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::You're new here aren't you...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

:Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.
:Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007

:::First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --[[User:Eb12|Eb12]] 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}
:Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to ''Star Wars'' when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is ''believed by Christians to be'' the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my [[essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:Good question! Why don't you work on it at [[The Gospels]]? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..." ==

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only ''begotten'' Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."

{{cquote|Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.}}

I appreciate it. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|FightPerniciousSwarm]] 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Category removal ==

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of [[:Category:Jesus]]. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Jesus in Islam ==

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

== Truth and verifiability ==

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for [[faith]]. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that ''Christians believe'' Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that ''According to the New Testament'', Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with [[Hell]], which states "''To Christians'', hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on [[Islam]], which mentions "''The Qur'an states that'' Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== The Theory of Jesus? ==

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable
[[User:Qc|Qc]] 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Hebrew or Aramaic?==
The article has the [[Aramaic]] form of His title but calls it [[Hebrew]]. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

==minor bits==
shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

== Commandments ==

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

== Editing ==

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

==Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.==

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Evidence for Jesus being black?==

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? [[craan|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner.
[[LiberalJohn|LiberalJohn]]
== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|Mark7]] 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Unlock==
Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus ==

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]] areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[[Arnold Toynbee]] in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon.
And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement [http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== transference of a section. Is it O.K.? ==

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Christians believe... ==
I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ ''is'' the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we ''don't'' say that He is? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==Technical difficulties==
When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== The "scourging" section ==

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

: I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Question ==
Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in [[Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|Mannerismxk909]] 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

== Could this article be opened ==

Could this article be opened to put [[Essay: The Way of Salvation]] under "See Also"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

==Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh==

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

==Minor Addition suggestion==
An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

== Can article be opened up again for edits? ==

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

== This article needs work ==

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article [[Christianity]].
--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==
Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

==Good for pictures==
I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==
<references />

== Clarify first paragraph? ==

The end of the first paragraph says, "Jesus then personally set the ultimate example for mankind by triumphing over the greatest evil imaginable, the Roman scourging and crucifixion." It reads as if the greatest evils imaginable were scourging and crucifixion, which of course is untrue. I suggest, "Jesus triumped over the [[Devil]], and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

== According to the bible ==

I understand this is a very Christian place, however would it be possible to add a "according to the Bible" to the start of the page? [[User:RileyS|RileyS]] 09:51, 15 November 2011 (EST)
:You can ask an Administrator to unprotect it for you. You could ask [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] about it. Again, please sign your comments like I told you.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)
::The answer is NO. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:53, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Interesting observation ==

According to the Bible, Jesus himself was a very liberal man. Were he alive today, he would most likely follow some form of socialism. He, as I'm sure most of you well know, was in support of tolerance of differences (something which most social conservatives today aren't), and complete peace (something which most political conservatives today aren't). Both of those are core pillars in most forms of socialism. He also demonstrated that he was in favour of free healthcare, which was shown by his healing of many people. I can't recall all the passages, but there were also several references in the Bible to wealth redistribution, most of them in the New Testament (if I recall correctly). There's the "camel through the eye of a needle" story, as well as "to whom much is given, much is required."

It is ironic that most conservatives biggest role model is the world's most famous liberal. Even more ironic that these people don't follow the man's inspiring words.

This should be mentioned in the article somewhere, for it is too great an issue to ignore. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 15:17, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::Please note that this is not an objective fact. This is ''Your'' interpretation of the Bible.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:::^. In addition, you should rely on the Conservapedia Translation project of the bible rather than a version that is possibly tainted by liberal bias. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::::: The Conservapedia interpretation of the Bible is as valid as my own. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 21:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)

== Can be opened for posting? ==

Would someone enter this posting with the title , "Jesus through the Fabric of our Lives", under External Links? - http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/jesus-through-fabric-of-our-lives.html ? Thanks you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 10:05, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Or, can someone make it possible for me to do the posting? either way.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 09:45, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 10:44, 22 November 2012 (EST)

If your blog has sufficient merit to be included in the external links, someone else will select it for inclusion. Please read, [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] number 5. Sorry, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:52, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Talk:God

2013-03-02T18:25:15Z

BWWTammy: /* Bias */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:God/Archive 1|1]].



==Abrahamic religion==

At least to me, this page practically (there are some very minor reference to other religions) makes it seem like the concept of a deity does not exist outside of the [[Abrahamic religion]], which is obviously false, and writes almost solely from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Perhaps "according to [[Abrahamic religion]]...." should be added, then, to make it clearer that this is not the only concept of a deity? --[[User:JamesCartwright|JamesCartwright]] 16:00, 4 December 2010 (EDT)

==Suggested rewording==
"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven)."

"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm, often times called Heaven."

[[User:DanK|DanK]] 00:00, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

== why (Redirected from Deity) to the page god ==

is it not more logical to send anyone looking for Deity to other gods page (who tells you nothing about the other gods but rather what the bible say about them) or for that matter a page about Deities not the god page if this is the trustworthy encyclopedia would you not try to be some level of open minded --[[User:Kyo|Kyo]] 23:49, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

== Spelling error ==
"Deity" is misspelled ("diety") in the "Terminology" section. --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 15:12, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

== Minor misspelling ==

Under the header "Terminology", the word "diety". I checked the reference link, and there aren't any misspellings there.

Please fix to "deity". Thanks. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:24, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bias ==
Why do you claim trustworthiness yet try to pass your opinion off as fact? The article should start with "According to Christianity..." because then that wouldn't be biased at all
:Why are you biased against God? Why are you biased against this website? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:32, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Exactly, Karajou. How do you know any of what's on this page is true? For these purposes, the Bible is an unreliable source.

== Formatting issues ==

Instead of this:

<nowiki>''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other Gods]]''
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
{{trinity}}</nowiki>

It should be this:
<nowiki>
''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other Gods]]''
{{trinity}}
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
</nowiki>

so that the template Trinity does not end up stuffed to the left of the image, thus stuffing the text of to the side. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:05, 9 December 2012 (EST)

Talk:Liberal/Arch1

2013-03-02T18:13:25Z

BWWTammy: /* Commandments? */

== This is a mess! Can someone archive some of it? ==

----

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

:How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

In fact the UK Liberal Democrats are split on financial matters. Many traditional liberal supporters advocate a higher rate of taxation for high earners, for example, but there is a growing centre-right faction which favours a lower flat rate of taxation for all. Most UK Lib Dems however are broadly socially liberal in the classical sense - the party evolved from an amalgamation between the SDP, a break-off from the Labour party by centrist anti-militants, and the old Liberal Party of Lloyd George which had been mostly dormant for 50 or 60 years.

Traditionally the Lib Dems were the minority centre party between Labour and Conservatives - these days some might put them to the left of New Labour, even though they are expressly not Socialist. -- [[User:Olly|Olly]] 10:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The original Liberal Party was a classical liberal party that grew from the Whigs and other parliamentary factions. Not by coincidence, the Republican Party of the United States grew from the Whig and others parties before the American Civil War. The Liberals were often the right wing party in parts of the United Kingdom where the Conservative and Unionist Party was historically unpopular and the left wing party where Labour was historically unpopular. Although the Liberal Parties developed in most parts of the British Empire, the Conservatives did not travel well, and have no successor parties in the United States or Australia. While they may appear to be to the left of Labour on some issues, so is the Conservative Party. Liberals however do not consider themselves to be left wing. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 19:42, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

:Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Which is why I don't consider Bush a conservative. right_wing2 8 April 2007

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

:Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The Commandments exist just so they can have ground to block the people they want to block. This place is corrupt. [[User:BWWTammy|BWWTammy]] 13:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

:For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)

Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll set some up.

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a difference of who should provide- individuals through voluntary charity, or forced through government programs. A more accurate definition might be to add the words 'forced... through government programs' to the definition. right_wing2 7 April 2007

:You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list... --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberalmedia- The list of liberal beliefs, possibly changed since your post, notes that this is defining liberals in the US today.
right_wing2 7 April 2007

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism in the US- additional
Liberals believe in the rights of 'groups' over the rights of 'individuals'
Liberals tend believe that the best way to help people is through government programs
right_wing2 8 April 2007

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==

The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

::This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.

::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...

::..who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]

Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::''Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department.''
::My Historical Revisionism Sense is tingling....
::[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401321.html] No U.S. Backup Strategy For Iraq
::[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atX8qSnykzIQ&refer=top_world_news]Biden Says U.S. Forces in Iraq Insufficient to Fight Insurgents
::I can probably find a few hundred more like that if I try. Bush started this war without sufficient troops, sufficient body armor, or anything resembling a good plan. Blaming it on the goods in uniform who swore an oath to obey his orders is pretty shabby. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war.

:P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

:Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

:It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

:And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::SHUT UP OR THE TERRORISTS WIN, Jack. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

*Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Liberals try to draw their morality and worldview from actual physical events and their own conciences, rather than basing it all on a 1700-year-old collection of legends. That is why they are ALL EVIL AND MUST BE KILLED '''FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN'''!!1!!1@!!one!! --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30

:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing. One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people. Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists. The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic. See below for further discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually that may not be supported by the facts; looking at the pure politics of the matter, GOP is moreless united in support of the President's policy, whereas the Democratic Party, in both the electorate & members of Congress--''prior'' to the elections and now--is divided on the issue. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The truth is one can support an ideal without supporting the way it's executed. But you know that, because you're a smart guy. You just choose not to know it right now. Oh, and you're also equating the GOP with conservatives. They're not the same. You know that, too.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Looking at the discussion, you'll see the qualifications: "indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior...etc.", and "looking at the pure politics of the matter" where I go onto cite both major parties by name. So the objection you state above could legitimately be refered to as a "non-responsive response". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly as you say [User:RobS|RobS: the democratic party is diveded on this issue. So don't put in the definition of liberal (which isn't the same as democrat, but lets forget about that for a sec) that they all oppose/support a certain policy, because they don't actually agree. [[User:Order]]

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.

:Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

===Disputed text===
* Opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

===References===
<references/>

'''Other sources''' 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#References
:A wealth of sources.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.
:According to Wikipedia, "ANSWER was one of several groups organizing the U.S. component of the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, which was, across the globe, the largest anti-war rally that has ever taken place.[1] ANSWER sponsored emergency demonstrations just before the launch of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, on March 15, 2003, which according to its website drew 100,000 people each in San Francisco and Washington. "
:: Two problems with these links. 1) Many antiwar protester were liberal, indeed, but many weren't. Just because most weren't conservative doesn't mean that they were automatically liberal. 2) Many liberals were supporting the invasion of Iraq, because they believed it would advance human rights and democracry. Conclusion: War protestors '''not equal too''' liberals. [[User:Order]]
*[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil], Robert Fisk, January 18, 2003, The Independent.
:Robert Fisk has twice interviewed bin Laden, and the earlier interview is incomplete in all internet versions, if memory serves me.

::This article is not opposing foreign policy advancing human rights, it is opposing foreign policy which the article calims is to advance oil interests, dressed up as advancing human rights. That is Fisk's point, like it or not. [[User:Order]]

:::Exactly. Bush, as the President, articulated US foreign policy in the same vein his predessors had going back to Wilson; hence, Bush's articulation of US foreign policy, in his role as the Chief Executive, '''is what American foreign policy is'''. Period. Fisk, whom nobody elected, questions the integrity of this claim. Fine. That is his free speech perogative. Many persons who self-identify as "liberal" signed on to this opinion. Fine. Hence we have the logical conclusion,
:::''"many persons who self-identify as 'liberal' oppose American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy."'''
:::This is not my invention; it is thier own language and actions. And further evidence is added by the fact that while in 2003, extreme elements who may not have been ''real liberals'', initiated this opposition movement. Since then however, more moderate elements, many likewise claiming the mantle of "liberal", now actively advocate withdrawing support from a liberal democracy elected by universal suffarage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The problem is that Fisk et al. just don't believe the president when he says that he does it to further human rights. Maybe, they are even in favor of policy that advaces human right they just don't see it in the policies of the president. If anything it should be ''Refusal to see the current foreign policy to advance human rights''.[[User:Order]] 27 March.
::::A problem for the current adimintration is that the elected government, and the majority of Iraqis also want the Americans to leave. You might argue that this is not wise to do, but hey still want it. [[User:Order]] 27 March.

===Discussion===
Let's examine footnote 2, ''"The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"'', extract:
:"Answer has had a strong hand in organizing many of the substantial anti-war gatherings since September 11, 2001. A few scratches at the surface of the organization reveals just how far outside the mainstream its ideology resides.

:The lead group in Answer is the International Action Center. Led by the former attorney general turned extreme-left activist Ramsey Clark, Answer is considered widely to be a front organization for the notorious Workers World Party. The WWP is a communist group, formed in the late 1950s as a breakaway faction from the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.

:"The WWP decided it would support even the most dictatorial of Communist leaders if their mission was to undermine America and its allies — something that didn’t sit well with most Trotskyites — and its final rift with the Socialist Workers Party was over the WWP’s support of the crushing Soviet incursion into Hungary in 1956. The WWP went on to back the Chinese government and its tanks against the dissidents in Tiananmen Square, tout the virtue of the North Korean regime and openly state its support for dictators like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

:And the organization’s wider agenda was well on display at a rally that preceded the march in Washington, D.C., this past Saturday: A hodgepodge of speakers representing diverse leftist causes took the stage — from supporters of Fidel Castro’s Cuba to opponents of the Philippine government. And, predictably, the Palestinian cause held center stage, with at least a dozen speakers, wearing kaffiyehs wrapped around their necks and demanding a full right of return for Palestinian refugees, a stipulation any knowledgeable observer of the conflict understands as a death knell for Israel.

:Answer’s wider agenda has made it easy for the right to launch attacks on the anti-war movement as it has picked up steam over the last three years. Anytime Answer is involved, the organization becomes an easy and obvious target, as well as a vehicle for criticizing other anti-war activists....

*Yes, <s>Conservative</s>, errr, Rob, I hear you. ;-) Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?

Soooo...this organization was in the forefront of organizing and leading todays anti-war movement before there even was an anti-war movement. And these visionaries call themselves '"liberal", "socialist", and "progresive", and have advocated such progressive reforms as the Tiananmen massacre. Who were the students at Tiananmen? Why they were a Chinese democratic movement stomped out in its infancy, from which the terrorism of the regime has stifled any further democratic hopes for two decades now, and the people remain essentially without any human rights.

The floor is now open for discussion....
:: The floor was open for discussion all the time. It was just you who didn't want to discuss.
: Anyway, at the time of the tienamen massacre, we had a Bush administration. Furthermore, you make the same mistake all over again. Just because a few vocal anti-war protesters claim to speak for all liberals, doens't mean it is true. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

::This makes no sense. Sr. Bush was reponsible for Tiananmen? Lame excuse and irrelevent for '''the fact''' that the heart and soul of this "liberal" anti-war movement today (a) was anti-democratic in the Tainanmen massacre and other occasions; (b) accepted human rights abuses as part of its program. And a further point, the founders and leaders of the current anti-war movement ''also'' are known for thier anti-Semitic views--a fact which reared its head again last election season among ''other'' liberals not associated with ANSWER. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The chinese government was responsible for Tienanmen. You blame liberal for complicity in the Tienanmen massrce, so when you cast the ball, expect it to return. [User:Order]] 26 March 15:30 (AEST)

[[User:Order]] stated, ''interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building''; can we say then Liberals oppose intervention and nation building in Durfur, and President Clinton had nothing to appologize for regarding Rwanda? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Republicans opposed nation building by Clinton, and Liberals nation building by Bush. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
:To wit: [http://www.kronykronicle.com/Articles/ThankClinton.html]

:That does not answer the specific question above. Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent. Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making efforts to advance human rights. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Nobody was pro-Ba'athist a few years ago, just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's. He was perceived as the lesser evil; a few years ago by many liberals, and in the 80s by many conservatives. You have to accept the fact that in foreign policy you have to sometime work with people who are wrong, but are the best alternative of many even worse ones, and it can be even difficult to deterime who is actually the lesser evil. Your allegations are as naive as anti-war allegations against Rumsfeld. Blame me for Realpolitik. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

:::*''Nobody was pro-Ba'athist''
::::See < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest >; reports "between six and ten million people" in 800 cities opposed American foreign policy which advocates human rights democracy, and in favor of insuring the survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime.
:::::Again, they just didn't buy Bushs argument that it had to be done to advance human rights. They were not protesting for Saddam, or against human rights, they were protesting against Bush. You might think that this is the same, but they didn't think like you do.[[User:Order]]
::::::No matter. This discussion about an ideological view will go no where with constantly inject terms like "Bush" "Democrat", or "Republican" into into. So what so we know? The President articluated a policy. People who do not hold the Office of the President rejected the policy, as is their right. What was the policy? Support for human right and democracy. What policy did the persons, without Constitutional authority, reject? Support for human rights and democracy. How do we know this true? The same persons, self-identified as 'liberal", are actively seeking to withdraw American support for the liberal democracy that currently hold power in Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You ask ''What is the policy?''. Your answer is: ''Support for human rights and democracy.''. The liberals answer is ''Its not about human rights and democracy.''. Both are opinions. And both have no place in this article. But I will edit your edit, to reflect the refusal of liberal to see these policies as advancement of human rights and democracy. Because at it now it pushes one opinion. [[User:Order]] 27 March, 12:55 (AEST)
::::::::The policy of the US Government is not an opinion, it's a policy. The opinion of private citizens that opposes the official US Government policy of advocating human rights and democracy abroad is an opinion.
:::::::::Two issues are with this: First, you do believe the claims of the policy makers about their aims. Second, you do believe that the policy is suited to achieve the aim. Lets take the "Defense of Marriage Act" by Clinton as an example.
:::::::::*Firstly, you may or may not believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage.
:::::::::*Secondly, even if you do believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage, you might think that Clinton's "Defense of Marriage Act" fails to do so.
:::::::::*Furthermore, you might think that ''defending marriage'' is none of the states business.
:::::::::*And finally, you might think that marriage should be abolished as an old fashioned institute, rather than defended.

:::::::::In the same spirit you have:
:::::::::*People who just don't believe Bush, when he says he does it for human rights.
:::::::::*There are people who say that they believe his intentions but that that his foreign policy is not achieving his aim.
:::::::::*Then there are people that claim that the US should not use the military to advance human rights and democracy.
:::::::::*And finally you have people who reject human rights and democracy.
:::::::::And what you do is, you lump everybody together in the last group, even though it is really just a minority of those who oppose Bush's foreign policy. Just like it was just a minority of those who opposed Clinton Defense of Marriage act, who opposed marriage. [[User:Order]] 27 March 13:45 (AEST)

::::::::::OK, so they don't beleive the government is sincere. Big deal. Nonetheless, that puts them in opposition to the governments declared policy. Secondly, they are just a random collection of private citizens--without any Constitutional authority whatsoever (other than thier individual First Amendment rights) to pulbicly express thier opposition to the governments stated policy of fostering democracy and human rights abroad. Third, the government has a track record now of (a) removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and assisting a democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track record of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
:::::::::::Everything up to ''By contrast'' is kind of true. But our ''liberal friends'' would deny that they argure in favor of fascism and they would deny that they want to undermine a liberal democracy. You have to give them the right to sincerely believe that they don't, just like Bush has the right to sincerly believe that his policy is fostering democracy in the Middel East. That you or I think that they are mistaken doesn't matter. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::The Defense of Marriage Act is not really a very good analogy, primarily because there is a difference between law and policy. And Bill Clinton isn't a dictator, the President has no legislative authority.
::::::::::There is a difference between law and policy, but in both cases you can have people who disagree with it for various reasons. And in a way, people should be more inclined to subscribe to a law, than to a policy, because as you said, a president doesn't have any legislative authority. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::Beleive it or not, there is a strong parallel between this discussion and the one about homosexuals in the Nazi party. In both instances, early on extreme elements (here it was ANSWER and other radicals, there it was gay stormtroopers) who advocated a position that was outside the mainstream. Over time, moderate elements adopted thier radical views and gave it legitimacy, so that it did not seem radical, extreme and fringe anymore. Once it became a majority, and had the reigns of power, then these anti-democratic and anti-human rights positions can be implemented, and they don't seem so radical now that so-called "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
:::::::::::This is moving off-topic. But lets me say this much. In the beginning of the 3rd Reich there were gays who were pushing the Nazi agenda, but there were no Nazis who pushed the gay agenda. Big difference, to gay liberals who push a gay liberal agenda.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::::Actually I think it's right on topic cause it gives us an excellant understanding of both controversy in both articles. What began as fringe became mainstream in both instances. On the Hitler page we are right a the Night of the Long Knives; this is a crucial point, cause it was here that Nazism gained respectability by the middle class when it abandoned it's "extremist" roots. But now we see it was middle class respectable folk who actually unkowningly or unwittingly actually embraced extremism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It is off-topic here, especially if we repeat our gay Nazi discussion all over. I'll take this discussion to your talk page [[User_talk:RobS#Night_of_the_long_knives|Talk RobS ''Night of the long_knives]]. See you there. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 17:15 (AEST)

::::::::::Your arguement is little more than Bush ''et al'' are bad guys and suffer from bad polling numbers. So what. It's just your opinion, and I can't find the words "opinion polls" anywhere in the US Constitution. But in the final analysis, we see so-called "liberals" no longer advocate human rights and democracy, and if anything, they, and now their "middle class" allies, have become more strident, stringent, and hostile to those long held goals of US foreign policy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Where did I say that Bush is a bad guy? I said liberals have the right to believe that Bush is a bad guy, and not believe his claims. And Bush has bad poll numbers, indeed. People got a hangover from interventionist policies and are tending towards isolationist positions. Not for the first time in American history.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00

::::::::Not to get sidetracked, but this discussion is similiar to athiesm. For example, I may hold the opinion that I do not beleive in stop signs, and therefore efforts by others to impose thier morality on me by erecting stop signs does not apply to me, because they can not force me to accept thier law and/or opinion. So watch out when I'm behind the wheel, cause nobody can legislate morality and impose thier value systems on me by forcing me to obey stop signs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*''just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's''
::::Newsflash: Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governors Assoc. Chairman, Gov. Bill Richardson also "shook hands with Saddam" when Richardson "met him in Baghdad" "in the 1980s", likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh Saddam was the West's darling in the 80s. And Rumsfeld gave him useful information and weapons in addition to a handshake. But again, neither of them was pro-Ba'athis. They were choosing the lesser evil. [[User:Order]] 27 March.
::::::You've said it twice now [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=66076&oldid=66039][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=next&oldid=67302] of fascism and democracy, fascism is the lesser of two evils. You've convinced me to reinsert the passage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The choice wasn't between fascism and democracy. In the 80s it was a choice between Iraqi fascism and Iranian theocracy and in this decade between state violence by Saddam and civil war between Sunnis and Shia. And don't claim that nobody could have predicted it. Many did. For example a conservative German politician, Toedenhoefer who said (figuratively) ''before'' the war that every day of war in Iraq will lead to one year of terrorism in the Middle East. So, there were concerned people, before the war, who weren't liberal, who found it tough to choose between chaos and Saddam. [User:Order]] 27 March, 13:15 (AEST)

*We again have too beasts here. It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa. We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year. The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.

::(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::How many American soldiers died in Kosovo? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Is that the measure of success? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::(a) It looks like the considered it [http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf] (b) How diffcult is it for you to understand that Liberals '''unequal''' democrats '''unequal''' Anti-War crowd? [[User:Order]]
::::That is exactly the point in the above language proposed for inclusion. Somehow we got off on a discussion of politcs. Point is "liberals" whoever that group is, I personally don't beleive many of them actually have an ideology, of if they do, they can't tell you what it is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Comment''': One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at our fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, <s>Conservative</s>, errr, Rob, I hear you. Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?
That was very poor humor. Just frustrated, because the amount of material and posts, makes me lose track. The argument is lost in all the hundreds of posts and documentation, the focus, for me, is lost. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:* Here. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Disputed_text] The Wikipedia technique of talking a matter to death don't work here. That's what conservativism is--not losing focus of one's values and views. Might I suggest the shifting sand of so-called "liberalism" is based upon moods, emotion, fads, fashion, and fancy, hence the difficulting of nailing down what its fundemental core principals are? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, no one but you has been talking anything to death. You are not a plain speaker. You are drowning people in endless citations. Say what it is you want to include! Exactly. Word for word. If it is ok, and proper to the page, I will leave it. If not, like Conservative, I will remove it. Please stop the veiled threats about what you will do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
----
Let's commend Sevenstring for this edit, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=prev&oldid=65762]. Following the discussion closely and weighing the arguments he placed a good powder puff over a blemish that now even turns stern criticism to advantage. Well done! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Internal consistency ==

My impression of Liberalism in the U.S. is that it has many internal contradictions. For example, on abortion, liberals assert a [[woman's right to choose]]. But in economics, they insist on limiting people's choices, favoring all sorts of [[socialist]] schemes.

They say they are for personal freedom but are extremely soft on [[slavery]] in the [[Sudan]] and they never criticize [[Communism]] for its totalitarian dictatorships.

They say they are for human rights, particularly the right not to be killed by one's own government or foreign invaders. But they are utterrly silent on the 60 to 210 million people murdered by Communist governments.

They are fond of pointing out evil in non-Liberals (like [[Adolf Hitler]]) but express admiration for murderous thugs like [[Che Guevera]] and genocidal maniacs like [[Mao Tsu-Tung]].

This list could be extended greatly. On the other hand, we conservatives must now air our own dirty laundry, lest we neglect Nietszched's warning about turning into monsters. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since Hitler believed in a strong central government/welfare state, it is historically incorrect to refer to him as a "Conservative", as we use the term in the United States. IMO. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
**Of course. That's why I tagged him as a non-Liberal. On the other hand, the tag [[right wing]] always carries a painful and insulting connotation of being Hitler-like. You'll surely have noticed how many times liberals have branded US conservative president [[George Bush]] a kind of Hitler, or compared America's only ally in the Middle East - Israel - to Nazis. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed! Don't forget your signature! :p It is the same disinformation as the CE/BCE crap. See the commandments talk page, "Grammar" entry. I know you knew, just was throwing it out there, as I sometimes do, for the confused. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's a good example: Volkswagan was founded as a state enterprise by the Nazi government [http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/vw.htm][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group#History] Hence with this example, we see the Socialist side of the "means of production" employed in the Nazi the state. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: 'they never criticize [[Communism]] for its totalitarian dictatorships.' I'm a liberal (by Conservapedian standards anyway); I criticise China; that statement is wrong. I'd like some sources for your 'facts', to counter mine - Amnesty International (a liberal organisation? a conservative one? take your pick!) condemns China, for example. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::proposed compromise: "rarely are [[Communist]] totalitarian dictatorships criticized" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, RobS--have you two ever actually TALKED to a so-called "liberal"? Because your view of them sounds like out-takes from a Rush Limbaugh blooper reel. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2013-03-02T18:11:16Z

BWWTammy: /* "the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:Exactly.[[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.

==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

:I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That would be super, Josh!

::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

==[[Classical liberalism]]==

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Liberal corporations section proposal ==

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==

If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==[[Liberals in Europe]]==

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

== this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

==Nazis and pedarists==

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. [[User:DavidMilton]]

== headline reversion ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&curid=3039&diff=909680&oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
: And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
: But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disarmament treaties ==

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== "the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." ==

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Wired magazine must be wrong...