Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Byzantine Empire

2010-03-03T16:11:23Z

BetsyNewson: add ref

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the great Greek-language Christian empire that emerged after 395AD from the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], Thanks to efficient government and clever diplomacy that divided its many enemies, the empire survived. Much diminished after 1204 AD when it was sacked by Christian Crusaders from the west en route to liberate Jerusalem, it finally fell to the Turks in 1453--indeed its fall is often used to date the end of the [[Middle Ages]]. Its capital was Constantinople, built on the site of the Greek colony of [[Byzantium]] and which is now known as [[Istanbul]]). The center of Orthodox Christianity, it is famous as well for its art and culture. The inhabitants of the empire referred to themselves as 'Romans' and considered themselves as such, the term 'Byzantine' not being used to describe the empire and its peoples until the seventeenth century, but after the seventh century the language of empire changed from Latin to Greek.
[[File:Byz-army.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Origins==
By the mid third century, the Roman Empire was beginning to become unmanagable because of its size and the slow speed of communication from one end to another. In an attempt to ovewrcome these difficulties,the Emperor Diocletian split the Roman Empire into two in 293 AD; each half having an 'Augustus' and a 'Caesar', his second in command and intended successor. This experiment didn't last long and Constantine re united the empire, moving its capital from Rome to the city of Byzantium which, in due course, he renamed 'Constantinople'.
==Culture==
The empire was multi-ethnic and officially Orthodox Christian; after c 750 AD, predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], ancient Greek culture, Byzantine art and architecture and [[Roman law]]. Of the 55,000 ancient Greek texts in existence today, some 40,000 were transmitted by Byzantine scribes. And it was the Byzantine Empire that shielded Western Europe from invasion until it was ready to take its own place at the center of the world stage.
[[File:Byz-600.jpg|thumb|600px|left]]
==Survival==
It survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 because of much greater financial resources. That is, it bribed away attacking armies whereas the west could not. The Empire actually reached its height in the 500s under Justinian as it reincorporated many elements of the Western Roman Empire, but shrunk back down to its Eastern roots as it lost these. After surviving the initial rush of Islamic expansion, the Empire settled into boundaries that were relatively stable for several hundred years. While western Europe struggled through the [[Dark Ages]], the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [[Islam]].
==Iconoclasm==
The Empire had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches. The position of the Emperors was often at odds with many of the subjects but since the Emperors considered that they were appointed by God, this didn't matter since their oponents were automatically heretics.
==Wars==
The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power, but their strong defensive strategy was usually able to weather attacks. Other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. The secure and lasting nature of the Empire was changed forever when treachery led their defeat to Islamic armies at the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071. They lost all of Anatolia to the invaders. Even when they retook the land, much of the population had perished with many of the survivors having fled. Areas that once allowed armies of 120,000 men to be raised for the defense of the Empire had now become barren. The Empire was forced to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of their army from that point forward.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>
==Crusades==
*see [[Crusades]]

The Empire was dealt another blow in 1204 when forces from Western Europe in the [[Fourth Crusade]] sacked Constantinople in 1204, the first time that had ever happened, instead of going to the [[Holy Land]]. They set up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261. On their arrival in Constantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Venetians, were astonished at the power and positions held by Eunuchs - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.
==Collapse==
[[File:Byz-1450.jpg|thumb|250px]] The Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the blow dealt to it by the Crusaders. Following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire was reduced to a mere shell of its former self. On May 29 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardment.

The Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]] and turned Agia Sophia, the great church of that city into a mosque and later into a museum.

==Further reading==
* Browning, Robert. ''The Byzantine Empire'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Empire-Robert-Browning/dp/0813207541/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256812130&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Brownworth, Lars. ''Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization'' (2009) 352 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hussey, J. M. '' The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-Byzantine-History-Christian/dp/0198264569/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Luttwak, Edward N. ''The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire'' (2009), military and diplomacy
* Shepard, Jonathan, ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492'' (2009), advanced scholarship [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Byzantine-Empire-c-500-1492/dp/0521832314/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Theophanes. The Chronicle of Theophanes. Anni Mundi 6095-6305 (A.D.602-813) Ed. and trans. Turtledove H.(1982) University of Pennsylvania Press.[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chronicle-Theophanes-6095-6305-D-602-813-Middle/dp/0812211286/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267632533&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
[[category:Byzantine Empire]]

Byzantine Empire

2010-03-03T16:06:35Z

BetsyNewson: clarification on language, what they considered themselves to be etc

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the great Greek-language Christian empire that emerged after 395AD from the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], Thanks to efficient government and clever diplomacy that divided its many enemies, the empire survived. Much diminished after 1204 AD when it was sacked by Christian Crusaders from the west en route to liberate Jerusalem, it finally fell to the Turks in 1453--indeed its fall is often used to date the end of the [[Middle Ages]]. Its capital was Constantinople, built on the site of the Greek colony of [[Byzantium]] and which is now known as [[Istanbul]]). The center of Orthodox Christianity, it is famous as well for its art and culture. The inhabitants of the empire referred to themselves as 'Romans' and considered themselves as such, the term 'Byzantine' not being used to describe the empire and its peoples until the seventeenth century, but after the seventh century the language of empire changed from Latin to Greek.
[[File:Byz-army.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Origins==
By the mid third century, the Roman Empire was beginning to become unmanagable because of its size and the slow speed of communication from one end to another. In an attempt to ovewrcome these difficulties,the Emperor Diocletian split the Roman Empire into two in 293 AD; each half having an 'Augustus' and a 'Caesar', his second in command and intended successor. This experiment didn't last long and Constantine re united the empire, moving its capital from Rome to the city of Byzantium which, in due course, he renamed 'Constantinople'.
==Culture==
The empire was multi-ethnic and officially Orthodox Christian; after c 750 AD, predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], ancient Greek culture, Byzantine art and architecture and [[Roman law]]. Of the 55,000 ancient Greek texts in existence today, some 40,000 were transmitted by Byzantine scribes. And it was the Byzantine Empire that shielded Western Europe from invasion until it was ready to take its own place at the center of the world stage.
[[File:Byz-600.jpg|thumb|600px|left]]
==Survival==
It survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 because of much greater financial resources. That is, it bribed away attacking armies whereas the west could not. The Empire actually reached its height in the 500s under Justinian as it reincorporated many elements of the Western Roman Empire, but shrunk back down to its Eastern roots as it lost these. After surviving the initial rush of Islamic expansion, the Empire settled into boundaries that were relatively stable for several hundred years. While western Europe struggled through the [[Dark Ages]], the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [[Islam]].
==Iconoclasm==
The Empire had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches. The position of the Emperors was often at odds with many of the subjects but since the Emperors considered that they were appointed by God, this didn't matter since their oponents were automatically heretics.
==Wars==
The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power, but their strong defensive strategy was usually able to weather attacks. Other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. The secure and lasting nature of the Empire was changed forever when treachery led their defeat to Islamic armies at the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071. They lost all of Anatolia to the invaders. Even when they retook the land, much of the population had perished with many of the survivors having fled. Areas that once allowed armies of 120,000 men to be raised for the defense of the Empire had now become barren. The Empire was forced to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of their army from that point forward.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>
==Crusades==
*see [[Crusades]]

The Empire was dealt another blow in 1204 when forces from Western Europe in the [[Fourth Crusade]] sacked Constantinople in 1204, the first time that had ever happened, instead of going to the [[Holy Land]]. They set up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261. On their arrival in Constantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Venetians, were astonished at the power and positions held by Eunuchs - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.
==Collapse==
[[File:Byz-1450.jpg|thumb|250px]] The Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the blow dealt to it by the Crusaders. Following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire was reduced to a mere shell of its former self. On May 29 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardment.

The Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]] and turned Agia Sophia, the great church of that city into a mosque and later into a museum.

==Further reading==
* Browning, Robert. ''The Byzantine Empire'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Empire-Robert-Browning/dp/0813207541/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256812130&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Brownworth, Lars. ''Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization'' (2009) 352 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hussey, J. M. '' The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-Byzantine-History-Christian/dp/0198264569/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Luttwak, Edward N. ''The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire'' (2009), military and diplomacy
* Shepard, Jonathan, ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492'' (2009), advanced scholarship [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Byzantine-Empire-c-500-1492/dp/0521832314/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Theophanes. The Chronicle of Theophanes. Anni Mundi 6095-6305 (A.D.602-813)Ed and trans. Turtledove H.(1982) University of Pennsylvania Press.
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
[[category:Byzantine Empire]]

Byzantine Empire

2010-03-03T15:40:37Z

BetsyNewson: add info re Agia Sophia

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the great Greek-language Christian empire that emerged after 395AD from the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], Thanks to efficient government and clever diplomacy that divided its many enemies, the Empire survived. Much diminished after 1200 AD, it finally fell to the Turks in 1453--indeed its fall is often used to date the end of the [[Middle Ages]]. Its capital was Constantinople (which it renamed [[Byzantium]] and is now [[Istanbul]]). The center of Orthodox Christianity, it is famous as well for its art and culture.
[[File:Byz-army.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Origins==
By the mid third century, the Roman Empire was beginning to become unmanagable because of its size and the slow speed of communication from one end to another. In an attempt to ovewrcome these difficulties,the Emperor Diocletian split the Roman Empire into two in 293 AD; each half having an 'Augustus' and a 'Caesar', his second in command and intended successor. This experiment didn't last long and Constantine re united the empire, moving its capital from Rome to the city of Byzantium which, in due course, he renamed 'Constantinople'.
==Culture==
The empire was multi-ethnic and predominantly Greek-speaking and Christian. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], ancient Greek culture, Byzantine art and architecture and [[Roman law]]. Of the 55,000 ancient Greek texts in existence today, some 40,000 were transmitted by Byzantine scribes. And it was the Byzantine Empire that shielded Western Europe from invasion until it was ready to take its own place at the center of the world stage.
[[File:Byz-600.jpg|thumb|600px|left]]
==Survival==
It survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 because of much greater financial resources. That is, it bribed away attacking armies whereas the west could not. The Empire actually reached its height in the 500s under Justinian as it reincorporated many elements of the Western Roman Empire, but shrunk back down to its Eastern roots as it lost these. After surviving the initial rush of Islamic expansion, the Empire settled into boundaries that were relatively stable for several hundred years. While western Europe struggled through the [[Dark Ages]], the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [[Islam]].
==Iconoclasm==
The Empire had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches. The position of the Emperors was often at odds with many of the subjects but since the Emperors considered that they were appointed by God, this didn't matter since their oponents were automatically heretics.
==Wars==
The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power, but their strong defensive strategy was usually able to weather attacks. Other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. The secure and lasting nature of the Empire was changed forever when treachery led their defeat to Islamic armies at the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071. They lost all of Anatolia to the invaders. Even when they retook the land, much of the population had perished with many of the survivors having fled. Areas that once allowed armies of 120,000 men to be raised for the defense of the Empire had now become barren. The Empire was forced to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of their army from that point forward.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>
==Crusades==
*see [[Crusades]]

The Empire was dealt another blow in 1204 when forces from Western Europe in the [[Fourth Crusade]] sacked Constantinople in 1204, the first time that had ever happened, instead of going to the [[Holy Land]]. They set up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261. On their arrival in Constantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Venetians, were astonished at the power and positions held by Eunuchs - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.
==Collapse==
[[File:Byz-1450.jpg|thumb|250px]] The Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the blow dealt to it by the Crusaders. Following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire was reduced to a mere shell of its former self. On May 29 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardment.

The Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]] and turned Agia Sophia, the great church of that city into a mosque and later into a museum.

==Further reading==
* Browning, Robert. ''The Byzantine Empire'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Empire-Robert-Browning/dp/0813207541/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256812130&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Brownworth, Lars. ''Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization'' (2009) 352 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hussey, J. M. '' The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-Byzantine-History-Christian/dp/0198264569/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Luttwak, Edward N. ''The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire'' (2009), military and diplomacy
* Shepard, Jonathan, ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492'' (2009), advanced scholarship [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Byzantine-Empire-c-500-1492/dp/0521832314/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256811926&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
[[category:Byzantine Empire]]

Byzantium

2009-01-08T16:06:26Z

BetsyNewson: added 4th crusade and source of name

Byzantium, or Constantinople, was a city founded by the Roman Emperor [[Constantine the Great]] in 330 AD, and which shortly afterwards became the new capital of the Roman Emperor. It remained the capital of the eastern part of the empire when the empire was divided into two halves in 395 AD, and wheras the western half fell to [[Barbarian]] invasions in the space of less than a century, the eastern half survived through the entire [[Medieval]] period. The centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, it was sacked by the Western Christian forces of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and wasn't regained by the Byzantines, under Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologous, until 1261. After this it grow weaker and smaller, until Constantinople finally fell to the Turks in 1453 AD. It is today the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The name Byzantium derives from Byzas, the name of the, probably fictional, founder of the Greek city present which occupied the site where Constantine built his new city.

[[category:history]]

Talk:Population control

2009-01-08T15:37:55Z

BetsyNewson: query figures

== Problems with bias in this page ==

Abortion is nowhere near the most important factor in controlling exponential population expansion. Resisting the natural impulse to have an excessive number of biological children in a family is. --[[User:Mert]]

==Overcrowded?==

Not sure who Paul Ehrlich is or was, and there's no citation given for the statistic that humans occupy only 1 or 2% of the earth's surface, but assuming the figures aren't from as biased a source as the CIA, do we know how much of the earth's land surface CAN be occupied by humans? If the area that CAN'T be occupied by humans, because it's too hot/too cold/too dry etc., is say, for sake of arguement, 80% then the 1 or 2% figure takes on a whole new meaning. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:37, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine

2008-12-15T16:44:48Z

BetsyNewson: apologies

Re: "Vietnam War was an unfortunate war created by Lyndon Johnson...." I think you might find that the first American troops were sent in by President Eisenhower in 1954 in order to support the French Government. Several Americans were killed flying missions in support of the French troops in Dien Bien Phu in April 1954 and at least three American airmen based in Viet Nam as part of the support mission were captured by the Viet Minh around the same time. President Kennedy was the next to send troops in THEN Johnson.[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:13, 15 December 2008 (EST)

: You don't describe a war. Occasional incidents occur all around the globe, and still do, without being wars. President Johnson authorized the Vietnam ''War'', not Kennedy or Eisenhower.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 11:16, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::Always happy to be put straight particularly on matters historical but I seem to recall that one of the issues at the time of the American involvement in Viet Nam was that America didn't declare war on North Viet Nam at any stage. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:20, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::: Congress didn't declare war. But President Johnson obviously did.

::: If you insist that Eisenhower or Kennedy started the Vietnam War, you'll be in a tiny minority of historians on that. Obviously Johnson was the one.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::OK, I'm not an American and know nothing about your legal procedures so can you put me straight on who makes a formal declaration of war in America? (Here in the UK it's a rather sensitive matter after the Iraq invasion.) I thought that in America a formal declaration of war had to come from the President with the consent of Congress and that all Johnson did was get a motion passed (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident) which stopped short of a declaration of war? If that was so then America wasn't technically at war with Viet Nam. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:31, 15 December 2008 (EST)
:::::BetsyNewson, I suppose on those grounds you'll argue that the Falklands War wasn't a war, and the first and second Gulf wars not wars, just 'actions'. Such literal-mindedness is a common [[Liberal]] tactic. If it walks like a [[duck]], etc... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not particularly bothered what it's called. I posted originally in order to correct what appeared to me to be a minor error of fact that had been included in the homework answer and then, following the comment from Mr Schlafly, I simply asked for clarification of the status of US involvement in Viet Nam. If correcting what appears to be an error was wrong on my part I'm happy to apologise. Having got that out of the way, I'm still no clearer on what the American system for declaring war is! Perhaps you can explain? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:44, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine

2008-12-15T16:31:36Z

BetsyNewson: a query?

Talk:American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine

2008-12-15T16:20:51Z

BetsyNewson: I stand corrected but....

Talk:American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine

2008-12-15T16:13:50Z

BetsyNewson: mea culpa...forgot my sig.

Talk:American History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Nine

2008-12-15T16:12:55Z

BetsyNewson: correcting a misconception

User talk:RickD/Physical Science for Christian Schools

2008-12-08T13:31:27Z

BetsyNewson: Well done!

Excellent start! We need more material from this type of this academic source, untainted by Liberal bias and presenting the true Christian facts to our children. Well done! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 08:31, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Tomography

2008-11-07T16:40:58Z

BetsyNewson:

[[Image:CAT canner.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Medical CAT scanner]][[Image:CAT scan image.jpg|thumb|left|200px|CAT scan image of human torso]]'''Tomography''' is a method of imaging three-dimensional objects as plane sections. Three dimensional models are built up using [[electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] or acoustic [[wave]]s (such as [[x-ray]]s, [[gamma ray]]s, [[ultrasound]] or [[seismology|seismic]] waves) and processed in a [[computer]] to produce cross-sections in any desired orientation. The [[image]]s produced by tomography are known as ''tomograms''.

In [[medicine]], x-rays may be used to image a human body by moving it through a rotating, high-speed, [[toroid]]al scanning unit. The thousands of slices are combined in a computer, this technique is known as ''computerized axial tomography'' and the machine is known as a C.A.T scanner and the images thus produced known as tomcatograms

[[Category: Medicine]]

Byzantine Empire

2008-11-07T16:38:46Z

BetsyNewson:

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the name given to the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], which survived until well into the [[Middle Ages]]. First split into an Eastern and Western divisions by [[Diocletian]] in 293, the Eastern Empire went on to outlive its Western half, which fell in 476 AD, by 1000 years. Founded by the Emperor [[Constantine]] in 330 in the city of [[Constantinople]], the empire was multi-ethnic and predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Greek]] philosophy, [[Greek]] language, Byzantine Art and Architecture and [[Roman law]]. It survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 because of much greater financial resources. In other words it could bribe away attacking armies whereas the west could not. The Empire actually reached its height in the 500s under Justinian as it reincluded many elements of the Western Roman Empire, but shrunk back down to its Eastern roots as it lost these. After surviving the intial rush of Islamic expansion, the Empire settled into boundaries that were relatively stable for several hundred years. While western Europe struggled through the [[Dark Ages]], the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [[Islam]].

The Empire had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches. The position of the Emperors was often at odds with many of the subjects but since the Emperors considered that they were appointed by God, this didn't matter since their oponents were automatically heretics.

The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power, but their strong defensive strategy was usually able to weather attacks. Other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. The secure and lasting nature of the Empire was changed forever when treachery led their defeat to Islamic armies at the [[Battle of Manzikert]] in 1071. They lost all of Anatolia to the invaders. Even when they retook the land, much of the population had perished with many of the survivors having fled. Areas that once allowed armies of 120,000 men to be raised for the defense of the Empire had now become barren. The Empire was forced to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of their army from that point forward.<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>

The Empire was dealt another blow in 1204 when forces from Western Europe in the [[Fourth Crusade]] sacked Constantinople in 1204, the first time that had ever happened, instead of going to the [[Holy Land]]. They set up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261. On their arrival in Constantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Ventians, were astonished at the power and positions held by "Eurochs" - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.

The Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the blow dealt to it by the Crusaders. On May 29 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardament - though by this time, following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire had been reduced to a mere shell of its former self. It is believed by some that the last indirect descendant of Constantine Palealogous XXI, the last Emperor of Byzantium, was Lady Joanna Constantine, who died in Northampton, England, in October 1859.

The Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]] and turned the great church of that city into a mosque.

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]

Byzantine Empire

2008-10-29T22:00:47Z

BetsyNewson: persians added

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the name given to the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], which survived until well into the [[Middle Ages]]. First split into an Eastern and Western divisions by [[Diocletian]] in 293, the Eastern Empire went on to outlive its Western half, which fell in 476 AD, by 1000 years. Founded by the Emperor [[Constantine]] in 330 in the city of Constantinople, the empire was multi-ethnic and predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Greek]] philosophy,[[Greek]] language, Byzantine Art and Architecture and Roman law. While western Europe struggled through the dark ages, the Byzantine Empire kept up an aura of refinement and defensive strength that sheltered Europe from the attacks of first the Persian Empire, then [Islam]].

Constantine legalized Christianity and put an end to 300 years of Christian persecution in the Empire and his son [[Constantius]] (337-361) continued to follow in his father's footsteps. But [[Julian]], Constantius' scholarly cousin who Constantius helped to rise to prominence, usurped the Emperorship; Constantius died on the way to meet Julian in battle and Julian became sole ruler. Immediately he renounced Christianity and embraced paganism. He became known to the Christian Church and history as "Julian the Apostate" (361 - 363). He went so far as to outlaw Christianity but upon his death, it was reintroduced by his sucessor, the Emperor [[Jovial]].

Christianity didn't have an easy ride at first and took some time to settle down and be accepted by the bulk of the population as the predominant and official religion of the Empire. For example, a few hundred years after the founding of the church and the 20 or so years after Constantine's declaration making Christianity the formal religion of the Roman Empire, Christian church fathers began to turn their attention away from such trivialities as "surviving persecution" and toward the greater mysteries of the multitude of Gospels and letters that comprised Christian scripture. One such problem was the nature of Christ. One prominent church leader, named Arius, delved deep into the major gospels and letters and found that there was a problem with the idea of Christ having been "elevated", as Paul states, from humanity to deity at the resurrection. Essentially, this would mean a second God had been created - and Christianity was supposed to be monotheistic. The notion of "creating" a God was also extremely troublesome, but Arius held that this is precisely what scripture would imply. Another prominent leader, Athanasius, came up with a resolution to this problem by declaring that Jesus had always been God, and had become human through birth... etc. etc. And because 2 was not a divine number, but 3 was, Athanasius threw in the OT concept of the "Holy Spirit" to create an eternal trinity. There, no problem - Jesus was just another part of God, but had always been God and... you get the idea.

Arius angirly denounced this theology, showing repeatedly in debates that this position was not supported at all by scripture. Arius and Athanasius had numerous followers and this debate threatened a rupture in the church. So, the Roman Emperor basically told them they needed to resolve their differences, and there was a huge meeting held to resolve things. But it didn't resolve things, it made things worse. So the Constantine the Great, the Emperor, decided things, and he based his decision on the fact that Athanasius had the bigger group of supporters - thus, by political decree, the Trinity came to be.

Christianity also had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches.

The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power and as a result, its borders fluctuated greatly over time. However, other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire, or for the most part, ability, to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. This didn't stop the Western forces of the Fourth Crusade sacking Constantinople in 1204 and setting up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261.On their arrival in Canstantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Ventians, were astonished at the power and positions held by "Eurochs" - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.

On May 29 1453, after the refusal of the Christians in the West to come to their aid, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardament - though by this time, following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire had been reduced to a mere shell of its former self. It is believed by some that the last indirect descendant of Constantine Palealogous XXI, the last Emperor of Byzantium, was Lady Joanna Constantine, who died in Northampton, England, in October 1859.

In time, the Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]].

[[Category:European History]][[Category:Roman Empire]]

Winston Churchill

2008-09-11T14:53:06Z

BetsyNewson:

{{Prime Minister
|image=Solidgold.jpg
|seq=
|party=Conservative Party
|term_start=May 10, 1940
|term_end=1945
|previous=Neville Chamberlain
|next=Clement Attlee
|term_start2=1950
|term_end2=1955
|previous2=Clement Attlee
|next2=Anthony Eden
|birth_date=1874
|birth_place=
|death_date=1965
|death_place=
|spouse=
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Anglican]]
}}
The Right Honourable '''Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill''' (1874-1965) was a [[Britain|British]] statesman who served as [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]] for most of the [[Second World War]]. The only statesman to achieve high office in both World Wars and to write profusely about his experiences, Winston Churchill dominated the 20th Century like few other individuals. Although best known for his courageous leadership as British prime minister during World War II, Churchill was a formidable political thinker and one of the highest-paid journalists from the days of Queen Victoria's "little wars" to his memoirs of World War II.

A larger-than-life character, famous for his trademark cigar and his overblown reputation as a drinker (which he joyfully exaggerated), Churchill was also a talented amateur [[painter]] and pilot, soldier, farmer, bricklayer, and orator. When he retired from the House of Commons in 1964, he had spent over six decades in public life, a career that ran from the last great British cavalry charge to the nuclear age.

==History==
Born in 1874 to Lord [[Randolph Churchill]] and an American mother, the former Jennie Jerome, Winston spent a typical upperclass childhood in the hands of nurses and headmasters at a succession of private schools from the age of eight. While he was no more neglected than most boys of his age and class, his sensitive nature suffered as a result of his parents' aloofness and he always regretted his failure to achieve a close relationship with his father, who died in 1895 at the age of only 45. His mother later became his ardent ally, helping him achieve key assignments as a war reporter and smoothing his career in politics.

In late 1900, Churchill was elected to Parliament as a [[Conservative]] and took his seat in early 1901. His independent nature soon saw him at odds with his party, and in 1904 he "crossed the floor" to the Liberals, who won a landslide election in early 1906. He served the Liberal government as President of the Board of Trade and Home Secretary, where he helped introduce social legislation that laid the foundations for the later welfare state. In 1911, he became First Lord of the Admiralty (civilian head of the Royal Navy), working feverishly to complete the conversion of ships from coal to oil power. Together with his two First Sea Lords, Prince Louis of Battenberg and Admiral Lord Fisher, Churchill promoted fast, powerful battleships and outproduced the Germans to maintain British naval supremacy. He founded the Naval Air Service, and made numerous visits to ships and navy bases, where he was admired for his efforts to improve conditions for officers and crews.

At Churchill's direction, the fleet was at its war station before war broke out in 1914, but it was never able to engage the Germans in a decisive early sea battle. Worse, Churchill's support of a failed campaign to force entry in the Dardanelles "by ships alone" caused his removal from the Admiralty in May 1915. Reporting to his regiment in the trenches of Belgium, he was under fire for three months before returning to Parliament. In 1917, he was appointed Minister of Munitions and in 1919, Secretary for War and Air.

As Colonial Secretary in 1921-22, he advocated the dropping of poison gas on rebellious tribes of Iraqi Arabs [http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html]and during this period Churchill enjoyed two notable diplomatic achievements. At the 1921 Cairo conference, he helped establish the borders of the modern [[Middle East]], though he failed in his attempt to set up a Kurdish homeland "to protect the Kurds against some future bully in [[Iraq]]." Closer to home, he helped to forge the Irish Treaty, which kept the peace in Ireland for 50 years. Michael Collins, the IRA revolutionary with whom Churchill negotiated, said from his deathbed: "Tell Winston we could have done nothing without him."

In 1924, Churchill rejoined the Conservatives, serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer through spring 1929. He returned Britain to the gold standard and ran a government newspaper, ''The British Gazette'', during the general strike of 1926, and is still remembered in South Wales as the politician who sent tanks onto the streets to force striking miners back to work. He became increasingly separated from the Conservatives in the 1930s, first over the plan to grant India dominion status; later over Britain's slow rearmament in the face of Hitler's aggression; and finally when he championed King Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936. Not until war had broken out again in 1939 was he asked to rejoin the Government, again becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, which according to legend, signaled to its ships: "Winston is Back." He renewed his energetic naval policies but was repulsed in an attempt to wrest Norway from the invading Germans in April 1940, having first had to drop ambitious plans to invade neutral Sweden.

With the Nazi blitzkrieg pouring into the [[Low Countries]], Churchill succeeded Neville Chamberlain as prime minister on May 10, 1940, and presided over a year of devastating defeats. In those months, when Britain stood alone and almost unarmed against Hitler, as Edward R. Murrow said, "he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." After Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, Churchill vowed to help the Soviets, declaring, "If Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Establishing close ties with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, he secured American military aid and moral support, but his ultimate goal was to have America fighting at Britain's side. When the United States was drawn into the war by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill admitted that he "slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful."

Churchill was disappointed by the failure to control an expansionist Soviet Union toward the end of the war, and watched with mounting concern another totalitarian state rise dominant in Europe. To the amazement of many outside Britain, his party was routed in the 1945 general election and he became Leader of the Opposition. His famous "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946 was the opening salvo and warning of the Cold War, unpopular at the time but later considered prophetic. In 1949, he predicted the demise of Communism, "ignited by a spark coming from God knows where, and in a moment the whole system of lies and oppression is on trial for its life."

In 1951 the Conservatives regained an electoral majority and Churchill became prime minister again, but he was disappointed in his effort to achieve a peaceful settlement of cold war antagonisms, and his domestic record was indifferent. He became a Knight of the Garter, acquiring the title "Sir Winston" in 1953.

Churchill won the 1953 [[Nobel Prize]] for [[Literature]], bestowed for his numerous books on history, biography and politics. His greatest biography was ''Marlborough'' (4 volumes, 1933-38); his best-known historical work was ''A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'' (4 volumes, 1956-1958). His personal memoirs, ''My Early Life'' (1930), ''The World Crisis'' (5 volumes, 1923-31) and ''The Second World War'' (6 volumes, 1948-53) are readable personal accounts of his Victorian youth and the two world wars. In all, Churchill wrote over 40 titles in over 60 volumes, nearly 1,000 articles and uncounted speeches. His official life, by his son Randolph and Sir Martin Gilbert, is the longest biography ever published.

Asked to summarize Churchill in one sentence, Gilbert said: "He was a great humanitarian who was himself distressed that the accidents of history gave him his greatest power at a time when everything had to be focused on defending the country from destruction, rather than achieving his goals of a fairer society."

To Martin Gilbert also we owe these last lines from Sir Winston's biography: "When at last his life's great impulses were fading, Churchill's daughter Mary paid him perhaps the most eloquent tribute of all: 'In addition to all the feelings a daughter has for a loving, generous father, I owe you what every Englishman, woman & child does--Liberty itself.'"

Suffering from age and poor health, he retired in April 1955, but remained a Member of Parliament for another nine years. In 1963 he was declared an Honorary Citizen of the United States by President [[John F. Kennedy]]. He died at age 90 on January 24, 1965. [http://www.churchill.navy.mil/site%20pages/history.aspx]

== Churchill on Churchill, the American Connection ==

'''By Winston S. Churchill, his Grandson'''

"WHILE recently assembling my grandfather's writings on America into a single volume entitled The Great Republic, I used it as the opportunity to research further my family's American forebears.

Winston Churchill was half American by birth - a fact of which he was deeply proud. In his first address to a joint session of the United States Congress, on December 26, 1941, he teased the assembled Senators and Representatives with the mischievous suggestion, "If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way 'round, I might have got here on my own!"

His mother, Jennie Jerome of [[Brooklyn]], New York, later Lady Randolph Churchill, was a noted beauty of her day and Winston, as a young cavalry officer, shamelessly used all the influence she was able to bring to bear in his quest to see action in different parts of the globe from Cuba in 1895 and the North-West Frontier of India in 1897, to the Sudan in 1898 and South Africa in 1899. Through his maternal grandfather, Leonard Jerome, sometime proprietor and editor of [[The New York Times]], he had at least two forebears who fought against the British in the [[American War of Independence]]: one great-grandfather, Samuel Jerome, served in the Berkshire County Militia while another, Major Libbeus Ball, of the 4th [[Massachusetts]] Regiment, marched and fought with George Washington's army at Valley Forge. Furthermore Leonard Jerome's maternal grandfather, Reuben Murray, served as a lieutenant in the Connecticut and New York Regiments, while his wife Clara's grandfather, Ambrose Hall, was a captain in the Berkshire County Militia at Bennington. Indeed I have found no evidence of any ancestor who fought with the British in this misguided conflict, which Chatham and Burke had been so eager to avoid!

Not only did Winston Churchill have Revolutionary blood in his veins but, possibly, native American as well. According to family tradition, Jennie's maternal grandmother, Clarissa Willcox, was half-Iroquois. Clarissa's father, David Willcox, is recorded as marrying Anna Baker and settling in Palmyra, New York in 1791. The implication is that Clarissa may have been a half Iroquois accepted into the family. The truth will perhaps never be known. It is unsurprising that such matters, most especially in those days, went unrecorded. What is certain is that Winston's mother, Jennie, and her sister Leonie, firmly believed the story to be true, having been told by their mother, Clara: "My dears, there is something you should know. It may not be chic but it is rather interesting...." Furthermore, the family portrait of his maternal grandmother Clara, which I have inherited from my grandfather, lends credence to the suggestion that she may have been quarter-Iroquois, with her oval face and mysteriously dark features.

In recent years, genealogical researchers have sought to cast scorn on the suggestion that Clara's descent is other than "American Colonial of English background" But this fails to explain why, some 130 years ago, Clara would have told her daughters the story, at a time when it would have been deeply unfashionable to make such a claim. Nor does it explain the evidence of Clara's features which have little in common with the Anglo-Saxon. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the densely wooded country south of [[Lake Ontario]] around Palmyra, New York, where Clarissa Willcox was born, was the heartland of the Iroquois nation.

My cousin, Anita Leslie, in The Fabulous Leonard Jerome, quotes her grandmother Leonie, remarking on her exceptional energy: "That's my Indian blood, only don't let Mama know I told you!" While it is unlikely that the question of the family's native American heritage can be firmly proved either way, I have little doubt as to the truth of the matter. For me physical features speak louder than any entry in a register of births, but I leave it to the reader to make his or her own judgment of the matter.

WHILE compiling The Great Republic I read that the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], better known as the Mormons, had made available thirty years of their researches on both sides of the Atlantic, [http://familysearch.org], dumping on the Internet the records of some 300 million individuals who had been born, been married or had died on either side of the Atlantic. The system is somewhat quirky, in that it refused to recognize my grandfather's name, but when I punched in the name of Jennie Jerome and her parents, suddenly an amazing family tree sprouted forth, detailing some 255 ancestors on the American side of my family, of whose existence I had previously been unaware. Many of the branches run back to before the time of Columbus, one even through twenty-eight generations to the West Country to one Gervaise Gifford born in 1122 at Whitchurch, Dorset. That particular branch of the family barely moved fifteen miles in the space of fifteen generations before William Gifford, born in 1614 at Milton Damerel, Devon, and who married at St. Martins, London, on 4 March 1683, sailed for America, dying soon afterwards at Sandwich, Massachusetts in 1687.

Of these 255 ancestors I discovered no fewer than 26 who were born in England but died in America. To me they are true heroes - for these were the men and women who founded the America of today. In the course of my researches, I suddenly stumbled on the fact that one of my ancestors, John Cooke, who died in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1694, had been born in Leyden, Holland, in 1607. Aware that nearly half the Pilgrims on the Mayflower had been known as the "Leyden Community" - Walloon Protestants escaping religious persecution -I was prompted to wonder if any of my forebears had made that momentous voyage.

Within seconds, using an admirable Internet search engine straight out of P. G. Wodehouse, appropriately named [http://askjeeves.com], I was able to call up via the Mayflower website the full manifest of all 102 passengers and was fascinated to discover (assuming the Morman database to be correct) that Winston Churchill, ten generations removed, had not one but three ancestors who sailed on the Mayflower and who, more importantly, were among the mere fifty who survived the rigours of that first cruel winter on the shores of Massachusetts.

John Cooke, a lad of just 13, was one of those passengers, as was his father, Francis, and his future father-in-law, Richard Warren. I was further intrigued to learn that through them we may be linked to no fewer than three Presidents of the United States - Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George Bush‹and to Alan Shephard, the first American in space and the fifth to walk on the moon.
[[Image:Sir Winston Churchill.jpg|right]]
The one question mark regarding this lineage is whether John Cooke's and his wife Sarah Warren's daughter Elizabeth was indeed the mother of Churchill's ancestor, Daniel Willcox, Jr., born c. 1656/57 at Dartmouth, Massachusetts. While the Morman database is clear on this point, the suggestion has been advanced that Elizabeth may have been the second wife of Daniel Willcox - therefore only the step-mother of Daniel Jr.- in which case the direct link to the Mayflower would not be valid. There is here a conflict of evidence as yet unresolved.

What is undisputed is that this injection of American blood, through my great-grandmother Jennie Jerome, kick-started to new triumphs the Marlborough dynasty which had slumbered through seven generations since John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, had won his series of dazzling victories that had humbled France's "Sun King," Louis XIV, at the turn of the 18th century."
[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=110]

== Famous Quotes ==

*Winston Churchill, election broadcast (May, 1945) '''"I must tell you that a socialist policy is abhorrent to British ideas on freedom. There is to be one State, to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State, once in power, will prescribe for everyone: where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say, what views they are to hold, where their wives are to queue up for the State ration, and what education their children are to receive. A socialist state could not afford to suffer opposition - ''no socialist system can be established without a political police''. They (the Labour government) would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo."'''

*"Never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

*"Winston, if I were married to you I'd put poison in your coffee"...."Nancy, if I were married to you I'd drink it." ''(Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor, Viscountess Astor, b.1879, speaking to Sir Winston, and his reply, this occurred during a weekend house party at Blenheim Palace in the early 1930's)''

*"'''I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."'''[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=435]

*The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist" -- Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943.

*We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender! ''Speech in the House of Commons, 4 June 1940, following the evacuation of British and French armies from Dunkirk, as the German tide swept through France.[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#Never_give_in]

*What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may more forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their Finest Hour." ''Speech in the House of Commons, 18 June 1940, following the collapse of France. Many thought Britain would follow. [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#Finest]

*The gratitude of every home in our island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the world war by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. ''Tribute to the Royal Air Force, House of Commons, 20 August 1940. He had worked out the phrase about "The Few" in his mind as he visited the Fighter Command airfields in Southern England.'' [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#so_much_owed]

==See also==
* [[Yalta conference]]
* [[Charles de Gaulle]]
* [[Polymath]]

==Links==
*[http://www.churchill.navy.mil/default.aspx USS ''Winston S. Churchill'' DDG-81; official website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Churchill, Winston}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Historians]]
[[Category:Nobel Prize laureates]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Winston Churchill

2008-09-11T14:41:31Z

BetsyNewson:

{{Prime Minister
|image=Solidgold.jpg
|seq=
|party=Conservative Party
|term_start=May 10, 1940
|term_end=1945
|previous=Neville Chamberlain
|next=Clement Attlee
|term_start2=1950
|term_end2=1955
|previous2=Clement Attlee
|next2=Anthony Eden
|birth_date=1874
|birth_place=
|death_date=1965
|death_place=
|spouse=
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Anglican]]
}}
The Right Honourable '''Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill''' (1874-1965) was a [[Britain|British]] statesman who served as [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]] for most of the [[Second World War]]. The only statesman to achieve high office in both World Wars and to write profusely about his experiences, Winston Churchill dominated the 20th Century like few other individuals. Although best known for his courageous leadership as British prime minister during World War II, Churchill was a formidable political thinker and one of the highest-paid journalists from the days of Queen Victoria's "little wars" to his memoirs of World War II.

A larger-than-life character, famous for his trademark cigar and his overblown reputation as a drinker (which he joyfully exaggerated), Churchill was also a talented amateur [[painter]] and pilot, soldier, farmer, bricklayer, and orator. When he retired from the House of Commons in 1964, he had spent over six decades in public life, a career that ran from the last great British cavalry charge to the nuclear age.

==History==
Born in 1874 to Lord [[Randolph Churchill]] and an American mother, the former Jennie Jerome, Winston spent a typical upperclass childhood in the hands of nurses and headmasters at a succession of private schools from the age of eight. While he was no more neglected than most boys of his age and class, his sensitive nature suffered as a result of his parents' aloofness and he always regretted his failure to achieve a close relationship with his father, who died in 1895 at the age of only 45. His mother later became his ardent ally, helping him achieve key assignments as a war reporter and smoothing his career in politics.

In late 1900, Churchill was elected to Parliament as a [[Conservative]] and took his seat in early 1901. His independent nature soon saw him at odds with his party, and in 1904 he "crossed the floor" to the Liberals, who won a landslide election in early 1906. He served the Liberal government as President of the Board of Trade and Home Secretary, where he helped introduce social legislation that laid the foundations for the later welfare state. In 1911, he became First Lord of the Admiralty (civilian head of the Royal Navy), working feverishly to complete the conversion of ships from coal to oil power. Together with his two First Sea Lords, Prince Louis of Battenberg and Admiral Lord Fisher, Churchill promoted fast, powerful battleships and outproduced the Germans to maintain British naval supremacy. He founded the Naval Air Service, and made numerous visits to ships and navy bases, where he was admired for his efforts to improve conditions for officers and crews.

At Churchill's direction, the fleet was at its war station before war broke out in 1914, but it was never able to engage the Germans in a decisive early sea battle. Worse, Churchill's support of a failed campaign to force entry in the Dardanelles "by ships alone" caused his removal from the Admiralty in May 1915. Reporting to his regiment in the trenches of Belgium, he was under fire for three months before returning to Parliament. In 1917, he was appointed Minister of Munitions and in 1919, Secretary for War and Air.

As Colonial Secretary in 1921-22, Churchill enjoyed two notable diplomatic achievements. At the 1921 Cairo conference, he helped establish the borders of the modern [[Middle East]], though he failed in his attempt to set up a Kurdish homeland "to protect the Kurds against some future bully in [[Iraq]]." Closer to home, he helped to forge the Irish Treaty, which kept the peace in Ireland for 50 years. Michael Collins, the IRA revolutionary with whom Churchill negotiated, said from his deathbed: "Tell Winston we could have done nothing without him."

In 1924, Churchill rejoined the Conservatives, serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer through spring 1929. He returned Britain to the gold standard and ran a government newspaper, ''The British Gazette'', during the general strike of 1926. He became increasingly separated from the Conservatives in the 1930s, first over the plan to grant India dominion status; later over Britain's slow rearmament in the face of Hitler's aggression; and finally when he championed King Edward VIII, who abdicated in 1936. Not until war had broken out again in 1939 was he asked to rejoin the Government, again becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, which according to legend, signaled to its ships: "Winston is Back." He renewed his energetic naval policies but was repulsed in an attempt to wrest Norway from the invading Germans in April 1940, having first had to drop ambitious plans to invade neutral Sweden.

With the Nazi blitzkrieg pouring into the [[Low Countries]], Churchill succeeded Neville Chamberlain as prime minister on May 10, 1940, and presided over a year of devastating defeats. In those months, when Britain stood alone and almost unarmed against Hitler, as Edward R. Murrow said, "he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." After Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, Churchill vowed to help the Soviets, declaring, "If Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Establishing close ties with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, he secured American military aid and moral support, but his ultimate goal was to have America fighting at Britain's side. When the United States was drawn into the war by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill admitted that he "slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful."

Churchill was disappointed by the failure to control an expansionist Soviet Union toward the end of the war, and watched with mounting concern another totalitarian state rise dominant in Europe. To the amazement of many outside Britain, his party was routed in the 1945 general election and he became Leader of the Opposition. His famous "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946 was the opening salvo and warning of the Cold War, unpopular at the time but later considered prophetic. In 1949, he predicted the demise of Communism, "ignited by a spark coming from God knows where, and in a moment the whole system of lies and oppression is on trial for its life."

In 1951 the Conservatives regained an electoral majority and Churchill became prime minister again, but he was disappointed in his effort to achieve a peaceful settlement of cold war antagonisms, and his domestic record was indifferent. He became a Knight of the Garter, acquiring the title "Sir Winston" in 1953.

Churchill won the 1953 [[Nobel Prize]] for [[Literature]], bestowed for his numerous books on history, biography and politics. His greatest biography was ''Marlborough'' (4 volumes, 1933-38); his best-known historical work was ''A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'' (4 volumes, 1956-1958). His personal memoirs, ''My Early Life'' (1930), ''The World Crisis'' (5 volumes, 1923-31) and ''The Second World War'' (6 volumes, 1948-53) are readable personal accounts of his Victorian youth and the two world wars. In all, Churchill wrote over 40 titles in over 60 volumes, nearly 1,000 articles and uncounted speeches. His official life, by his son Randolph and Sir Martin Gilbert, is the longest biography ever published.

Asked to summarize Churchill in one sentence, Gilbert said: "He was a great humanitarian who was himself distressed that the accidents of history gave him his greatest power at a time when everything had to be focused on defending the country from destruction, rather than achieving his goals of a fairer society."

To Martin Gilbert also we owe these last lines from Sir Winston's biography: "When at last his life's great impulses were fading, Churchill's daughter Mary paid him perhaps the most eloquent tribute of all: 'In addition to all the feelings a daughter has for a loving, generous father, I owe you what every Englishman, woman & child does--Liberty itself.'"

Suffering from age and poor health, he retired in April 1955, but remained a Member of Parliament for another nine years. In 1963 he was declared an Honorary Citizen of the United States by President [[John F. Kennedy]]. He died at age 90 on January 24, 1965. [http://www.churchill.navy.mil/site%20pages/history.aspx]

== Churchill on Churchill, the American Connection ==

'''By Winston S. Churchill, his Grandson'''

"WHILE recently assembling my grandfather's writings on America into a single volume entitled The Great Republic, I used it as the opportunity to research further my family's American forebears.

Winston Churchill was half American by birth - a fact of which he was deeply proud. In his first address to a joint session of the United States Congress, on December 26, 1941, he teased the assembled Senators and Representatives with the mischievous suggestion, "If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way 'round, I might have got here on my own!"

His mother, Jennie Jerome of [[Brooklyn]], New York, later Lady Randolph Churchill, was a noted beauty of her day and Winston, as a young cavalry officer, shamelessly used all the influence she was able to bring to bear in his quest to see action in different parts of the globe from Cuba in 1895 and the North-West Frontier of India in 1897, to the Sudan in 1898 and South Africa in 1899. Through his maternal grandfather, Leonard Jerome, sometime proprietor and editor of [[The New York Times]], he had at least two forebears who fought against the British in the [[American War of Independence]]: one great-grandfather, Samuel Jerome, served in the Berkshire County Militia while another, Major Libbeus Ball, of the 4th [[Massachusetts]] Regiment, marched and fought with George Washington's army at Valley Forge. Furthermore Leonard Jerome's maternal grandfather, Reuben Murray, served as a lieutenant in the Connecticut and New York Regiments, while his wife Clara's grandfather, Ambrose Hall, was a captain in the Berkshire County Militia at Bennington. Indeed I have found no evidence of any ancestor who fought with the British in this misguided conflict, which Chatham and Burke had been so eager to avoid!

Not only did Winston Churchill have Revolutionary blood in his veins but, possibly, native American as well. According to family tradition, Jennie's maternal grandmother, Clarissa Willcox, was half-Iroquois. Clarissa's father, David Willcox, is recorded as marrying Anna Baker and settling in Palmyra, New York in 1791. The implication is that Clarissa may have been a half Iroquois accepted into the family. The truth will perhaps never be known. It is unsurprising that such matters, most especially in those days, went unrecorded. What is certain is that Winston's mother, Jennie, and her sister Leonie, firmly believed the story to be true, having been told by their mother, Clara: "My dears, there is something you should know. It may not be chic but it is rather interesting...." Furthermore, the family portrait of his maternal grandmother Clara, which I have inherited from my grandfather, lends credence to the suggestion that she may have been quarter-Iroquois, with her oval face and mysteriously dark features.

In recent years, genealogical researchers have sought to cast scorn on the suggestion that Clara's descent is other than "American Colonial of English background" But this fails to explain why, some 130 years ago, Clara would have told her daughters the story, at a time when it would have been deeply unfashionable to make such a claim. Nor does it explain the evidence of Clara's features which have little in common with the Anglo-Saxon. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the densely wooded country south of [[Lake Ontario]] around Palmyra, New York, where Clarissa Willcox was born, was the heartland of the Iroquois nation.

My cousin, Anita Leslie, in The Fabulous Leonard Jerome, quotes her grandmother Leonie, remarking on her exceptional energy: "That's my Indian blood, only don't let Mama know I told you!" While it is unlikely that the question of the family's native American heritage can be firmly proved either way, I have little doubt as to the truth of the matter. For me physical features speak louder than any entry in a register of births, but I leave it to the reader to make his or her own judgment of the matter.

WHILE compiling The Great Republic I read that the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], better known as the Mormons, had made available thirty years of their researches on both sides of the Atlantic, [http://familysearch.org], dumping on the Internet the records of some 300 million individuals who had been born, been married or had died on either side of the Atlantic. The system is somewhat quirky, in that it refused to recognize my grandfather's name, but when I punched in the name of Jennie Jerome and her parents, suddenly an amazing family tree sprouted forth, detailing some 255 ancestors on the American side of my family, of whose existence I had previously been unaware. Many of the branches run back to before the time of Columbus, one even through twenty-eight generations to the West Country to one Gervaise Gifford born in 1122 at Whitchurch, Dorset. That particular branch of the family barely moved fifteen miles in the space of fifteen generations before William Gifford, born in 1614 at Milton Damerel, Devon, and who married at St. Martins, London, on 4 March 1683, sailed for America, dying soon afterwards at Sandwich, Massachusetts in 1687.

Of these 255 ancestors I discovered no fewer than 26 who were born in England but died in America. To me they are true heroes - for these were the men and women who founded the America of today. In the course of my researches, I suddenly stumbled on the fact that one of my ancestors, John Cooke, who died in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1694, had been born in Leyden, Holland, in 1607. Aware that nearly half the Pilgrims on the Mayflower had been known as the "Leyden Community" - Walloon Protestants escaping religious persecution -I was prompted to wonder if any of my forebears had made that momentous voyage.

Within seconds, using an admirable Internet search engine straight out of P. G. Wodehouse, appropriately named [http://askjeeves.com], I was able to call up via the Mayflower website the full manifest of all 102 passengers and was fascinated to discover (assuming the Morman database to be correct) that Winston Churchill, ten generations removed, had not one but three ancestors who sailed on the Mayflower and who, more importantly, were among the mere fifty who survived the rigours of that first cruel winter on the shores of Massachusetts.

John Cooke, a lad of just 13, was one of those passengers, as was his father, Francis, and his future father-in-law, Richard Warren. I was further intrigued to learn that through them we may be linked to no fewer than three Presidents of the United States - Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt and George Bush‹and to Alan Shephard, the first American in space and the fifth to walk on the moon.
[[Image:Sir Winston Churchill.jpg|right]]
The one question mark regarding this lineage is whether John Cooke's and his wife Sarah Warren's daughter Elizabeth was indeed the mother of Churchill's ancestor, Daniel Willcox, Jr., born c. 1656/57 at Dartmouth, Massachusetts. While the Morman database is clear on this point, the suggestion has been advanced that Elizabeth may have been the second wife of Daniel Willcox - therefore only the step-mother of Daniel Jr.- in which case the direct link to the Mayflower would not be valid. There is here a conflict of evidence as yet unresolved.

What is undisputed is that this injection of American blood, through my great-grandmother Jennie Jerome, kick-started to new triumphs the Marlborough dynasty which had slumbered through seven generations since John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough, had won his series of dazzling victories that had humbled France's "Sun King," Louis XIV, at the turn of the 18th century."
[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=110]

== Famous Quotes ==

*Winston Churchill, election broadcast (May, 1945) '''"I must tell you that a socialist policy is abhorrent to British ideas on freedom. There is to be one State, to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State, once in power, will prescribe for everyone: where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say, what views they are to hold, where their wives are to queue up for the State ration, and what education their children are to receive. A socialist state could not afford to suffer opposition - ''no socialist system can be established without a political police''. They (the Labour government) would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo."'''

*"Never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

*"Winston, if I were married to you I'd put poison in your coffee"...."Nancy, if I were married to you I'd drink it." ''(Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor, Viscountess Astor, b.1879, speaking to Sir Winston, and his reply, this occurred during a weekend house party at Blenheim Palace in the early 1930's)''

*"'''I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."'''[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=435]

*The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist" -- Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943.

*We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender! ''Speech in the House of Commons, 4 June 1940, following the evacuation of British and French armies from Dunkirk, as the German tide swept through France.[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#Never_give_in]

*What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may more forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their Finest Hour." ''Speech in the House of Commons, 18 June 1940, following the collapse of France. Many thought Britain would follow. [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#Finest]

*The gratitude of every home in our island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the world war by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. ''Tribute to the Royal Air Force, House of Commons, 20 August 1940. He had worked out the phrase about "The Few" in his mind as he visited the Fighter Command airfields in Southern England.'' [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#so_much_owed]

==See also==
* [[Yalta conference]]
* [[Charles de Gaulle]]
* [[Polymath]]

==Links==
*[http://www.churchill.navy.mil/default.aspx USS ''Winston S. Churchill'' DDG-81; official website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Churchill, Winston}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Historians]]
[[Category:Nobel Prize laureates]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Religious vegetarianism

2008-09-11T14:31:30Z

BetsyNewson:

'''Religious vegetarianism''' is type of [[vegetarianism]], in which one is vegetarian, based on primarily and/or solely religious reasons. Religious vegetarians are often followers of [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]] and [[Jainism]]. Some [[Muslims]] living in the [[United States of America]] and [[Canada]] choose not to eat meat because of not having access to [[Halal]] meat, although some of them may simply get [[Kosher]] meat, instead. Some denominations of [[Christianity]] require and/or believe that being a vegetarian is ideal. It follows therfore that believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be vegetarians.

[[Category:Religion]]

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-09-11T14:26:17Z

BetsyNewson:

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Tibet

2008-09-11T14:14:46Z

BetsyNewson:

[[Image:Tibet map.gif|right]]
'''Tibet''' is a country in a [[mountain]]ous region that was located between [[India]] and [[China]] until it was forcefully annexed by the Chinese in 1951, and the local [[Buddhist]] culture was undermined and intended to be suppressed. The [[communist]] Chinese government considers Tibet to be geographically part of China, and has made Tibet an [[Autonomous Region]]. Its capital is [[Lhasa]].

The [[spirit]]ual leader of Tibet is His Holiness the 14th [[Dalai Lama]], currently in exile in India. <ref>[http://www.dalailama.com/ The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama]</ref>

Tibetan art is intrinsically bound with Tibetan [[Buddhism]].

== Historical Tibet ==

''According to Tibetan annals, the first king of Tibet ruled from 127 BC, but it was only in the seventh century AD that Tibet emerged as a unified state and a mighty empire under Emperor Gampo. Songtsen Gampo (born ca. 604, died 650) is the great emperor who expanded Tibet's power.''

''Tibet's earliest religion is Bön. Buddhism flourished in Tibet in the seventh century... With the assumption of power by the Dalai Lamas in 1642, the era of "harmonious blend of religion and politics" was established in Tibet. Monasteries, temples and hermitages were found in every village and town throughout Tibet.''

''Tibet was an independent state in fact and [[law]] at the time of China's invasion. Tibetan society before the Chinese invasion was under the control of Buddhist monks headed by the Dalai Lama, a leader chosen by other monks because he was the supposed reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama. No semblence of democracy existed; total control of the country and all its assets was in the hands of the religious authorities and all Tibetans were subject to rule of these authorities. The beginnings of popular Tibetan opposition to this theocratic rule was the reason why the Dalai Lama belately, and very slowly, initiated far-reaching reforms soon after he assumed full temporal authority in the early fifties.''
''The peace treaty concluded between Tibet and China in 821, is of particular importance in illustrating the nature of relations between these two great powers of Asia.''

''The Chinese themselves view Tibet in colonial terms: that is, not as part of China proper, but as non-Chinese territory which China has a right to own and exploit, on the basis of relationship that existed 700 years ago. Resistance to the Chinese occupation started to take on organized forms as early as 1952, reached massive proportions in 1959, and has continued, primarily underground, ever since.'' <ref>[http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/exesum.html Tibet: Proving Truth from Facts]</ref>

== External links ==
[[Image:Avalokiteshvarasm.jpg|right|120px|Tibetan Buddhism]]
*[http://www.mon-photo.com/Asia/Tibet/en.htm Tibet] Photo Galleries.
*[http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white1.html The Status of Tibet]
*[http://www.vot.org/index.html Tibetan News Headlines]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Asia]]
[[Category:China]]

Byzantine Empire

2008-08-28T16:18:09Z

BetsyNewson:

The '''Byzantine Empire''' is the name given to the eastern part of the [[Roman Empire]], which survived until well into the [[Middle Ages]]. First split into an Eastern and Western divisions by [[Diocletian]] in 293, the Eastern Empire went on to outlive its Western half by 1000 years. Founded by the Emperor [[Constantine]] in 330 in the city of Constantinople, a coincidence that want't to be matched until [[Cecil Rhodes]] discovered [[Rhodesia]], the empire was multi-ethnic and predominantly Greek-speaking. The empire's heritage consisted of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Greek]] philosophy,[[Greek]] language, Byzantine Art and Architecture and Roman law. They were also responsible for originating and popularising what is now known as a Turkish Kebab.

Though Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire, his immediate sucessors were not that sympathetic, preferring the older Roman gods. The Emperor Julian the Apostrophe, 331 -360, went as far as outlawing Christianity but on his death, it was reintroduced by his sucessor, the Emperor Jovial.

Christianity didn't have an easy ride at first and took some time to settle down and be accepted by the bulk of the population as the predominant and official religion of the Empire. For example, a few hundred years after the founding of the church and the 20 or so years after Constantine's declaration making Christianity the formal religion of the Roman Empire, Christian church fathers began to turn their attention away from such trivialities as "surviving persecution" and toward the greater mysteries of the multitude of Gospels and letters that comprised Christian scripture. One such problem was the nature of Christ. One prominent church leader, named Arius, delved deep into the major gospels and letters and found that there was a problem with the idea of Christ having been "elevated", as Paul states, from humanity to deity at the resurrection. Essentially, this would mean a second God had been created - and Christianity was supposed to be monotheistic. The notion of "creating" a God was also extremely troublesome, but Arius held that this is precisely what scripture would imply. Another prominent leader, Athanasius, came up with a resolution to this problem by declaring that Jesus had always been God, and had become human through birth... etc. etc. And because 2 was not a divine number, but 3 was, Athanasius threw in the OT concept of the "Holy Spirit" to create an eternal trinity. There, no problem - Jesus was just another part of God, but had always been God and... you get the idea.

Arius angirly denounced this theology, showing repeatedly in debates that this position was not supported at all by scripture. Arius and Athanasius had numerous followers and this debate threatened a rupture in the church. So, the Roman Emperor basically told them they needed to resolve their differences, and there was a huge meeting held to resolve things. But it didn't resolve things, it made things worse. So the Constantine the Great, the Emperor, decided things, and he based his decision on the fact that Athanasius had the bigger group of supporters - thus, by political decree, the Trinity came to be.

Christianity also had difficulties with the "Iconoclast" controversy - a dispute lasting nealy 100 years and centering around arguements over whether or not to allow "holow images" or icons to be displayed in the churches.

The Empire was often at war with at least one foreign power and as a result, its borders fluctuated greatly over time. However, other than the period 1204 to 1261, the Empire was always centred in [[Constantinople]].

While taking on offensive position to "reunite" with the west under Justinian in the 500's, for the most part the position of the Empire was defensive in nature, having little desire, or for the most part, ability, to increase its borders. For years the cultured Byzantine Empire was the protector of Dark Age Europe, repelling Islamic armies that would stretch to control lands from Morocco to India via Hungary. This didn't stop the Western forces of the Fourth Crusade sacking Constantinople in 1204 and setting up their own "Latin" Empire, so called because of their attempts to make Latin the official language of the Empire rather than Greek, which lasted until the Byzantine reinstatement in 1261.On their arrival in Canstantinople, the Latins, mostly Franks and Ventians, were astonished at the power and positions held by "Eurochs" - men who, as children, had been castigated so that they would have no children and hence be no threat to the ruling Imperial dynasty.

On May 29 1453, after the refusal of the Christians in the West to come to their aid, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the [[Ottoman Turks]] after a long cannon bombardament - though by this time, following the fall of the city to the Latins in 1204, the Empire had been reduced to a mere shell of its former self. It is believed by some that the last indirect descendant of Constantine Palealogous XXI, the last Emperor of Byzantium, was Lady Joanna Constantine, who died in Northampton, England, in October 1859.

In time, the Ottoman conquerors, whose original capital had been located in Sofa, now in [[Bulgaria]], renamed the city [[Istanbul]].

[[Category:European History]][[Category:Roman Empire]]

Talk:World History Lecture Six

2008-08-27T13:50:27Z

BetsyNewson:

==The New Zealand population survived by growing bananas, coconuts, yams and taro==

Where did you get this information from? The New Zealand climate does not support the growth of bananas and coconuts. the staple of Maori agriculture was the kumara (sweet potato). I don't think they had pigs either. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 08:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==End of the Byzantine Empire?==

''"The end of the Byzantine empire occurred when Mongols invaded in the 13th century, followed by the rise of the Ottoman (Muslim) Turks to power in the 14th century, who replaced the Byzantium empire with their own."''

I suspect the fact that the Byzantine Empire came to an end in the 13th century would come as a suprise to those rulers and subjects of the Empire who were still there when Constantinople fell in 1453.[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 09:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery religion

2008-08-24T14:26:30Z

BetsyNewson: New page: Anybody looking after this? It need some work methinks...it just doesn't make sense as it is. ~~~~

Anybody looking after this? It need some work methinks...it just doesn't make sense as it is. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:T-34 tank

2008-08-23T14:04:56Z

BetsyNewson:

[[Image:T-34.jpg]]

Here's a good illustration of the T-34 in action; can anyone identify what the German vehicle is? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

The Russian tank is a T34/76 and the German tank looks like a PzKWII though it's possible it's a captured Czech tank; can't tell from the photo [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

There's a better photograph in ''Schiffer Military History series vol.59, Russian T-34 Battle Tank, by Horst Scheibert'' and that shows it clearly to be a Pz.Kpfw II but can't make out if it's an Ausf B,C or D. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Byzantine Empire

2008-08-22T16:01:38Z

BetsyNewson:

Byzantine Empire

2008-08-22T15:59:30Z

BetsyNewson:

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T17:43:18Z

BetsyNewson: /* Stephen Fry */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T15:19:30Z

BetsyNewson: /* Stephen Fry */

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T15:16:50Z

BetsyNewson: /* Stephen Fry */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-20T15:01:50Z

BetsyNewson:

Byzantine Empire

2008-08-14T14:30:20Z

BetsyNewson:

Talk:Byzantine Empire

2008-08-13T13:20:34Z

BetsyNewson:

Anybody working on this? I'd liked to get involved in expanding it. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 12:04, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

There is at least one serious error in this page.

The statement:
"First split into an Eastern and Western divisions by Constantine in the 300s A.D." is just wrong. the Empire was first split by Diocletian in 293.

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 12:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Nobody answered so I've started to sort it out myself.[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 09:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Byzantine Empire

2008-08-13T13:19:04Z

BetsyNewson:

Talk:Byzantine Empire

2008-08-11T16:24:10Z

BetsyNewson:

Talk:T-34 tank

2008-08-10T17:42:51Z

BetsyNewson:

Talk:Byzantine Empire

2008-08-09T16:04:41Z

BetsyNewson: New page: Anybody working on this? I'd liked to get involved in expanding it. ~~~~

Anybody working on this? I'd liked to get involved in expanding it. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 12:04, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Medieval religion

2008-08-09T16:00:45Z

BetsyNewson:

==Oh Please==
From the stub '''It is relevant to note, that the vast majority of Roman Catholics were illiterate and therefore recognised their religion through the medium of Catholic clergy, and it is this ignorance of the Bible that seperates Catholics and Protestants to the present day.'''

While it may be true that most Roman Catholics were illiterate, (there is no cite for that, but anyway) perhaps the reason for that was the serfdom didn't need to know how to read given that most of their time was taken up serving their feudal lords and making sure they had enough to eat themselves and try to stay warm. Also, during this time books of any sort were very expensive as they had to be either hand copied or made on presses that had non-movable type (so that only a few hundred copies could be made before a new plate was made). Only in the fifteen century, ''after'' Gutenberg invented movable type, did publishing costs plummet. Hence a deluge of Bibles hit the market and people of modest means could afford to own one, (even then, it still it took a couple of generations until the populous was literate enough that demand for written materials made publishing a worthwhile occupation for the "middle class".)
Also...It was only after books were cheap enough that mandatory public education started in earnest. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I have rewritten the section to avoid the needless inflammatory nature, but please add whatever information you believe is noteworthy. We could always use improvement. ;-) Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:19, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm new to the whole wiki thing but a couple of comments...... wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to Roman Catholicism as being the predominant religion of '''Western''' Medieval Europe? I suspect the people of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire would have been somewhat upset at being called '''Roman''' Catholics, particularly after the schism, even though they did consider themselves Romans and the heirs to the classical Roman Empire.

Second comment.....it appears that, in the UK at least, there is a general move amongst historians to drop the word "Medieval" since it's considered to be imprecise and inaccurate and anyway, and no two historians seem to be able to agree when it actually was!

Betsy

Sorry about that .....only just sorted out how to sign my name [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 12:00, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Medieval religion

2008-08-09T15:39:59Z

BetsyNewson:

United Kingdom

2007-11-10T18:41:07Z

BetsyNewson:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:United kingdom rel87.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Union_jack.jpg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[London]]
|-
|Government
|Constitutional Monarchy
|-
|Official Language
|[[English]]
|-
|Head of State
|Queen Elizabeth II
|-
|Prime Minister
|Gordon Brown
|-
|Area
|94,526 sq mi
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|60,587,300
|-
|GDP (2006 estimate)
|US$2.006 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006 estimate)
|US$35,051
|-
|}

The '''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''', generally called the '''United Kingdom''' or the '''UK''', is a sovereign [[state]] north west of mainland [[Europe]]. It consists of the nations of [[England]], [[Wales]] and [[Scotland]], which occupy the island of Great Britain, and the province of [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of Ireland. It attained its current form in 1922 after most of [[Ireland]] was granted independence (although the current name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not adopted until 1927), but its origins can be traced back at least to 1603, when England and Scotland came to be ruled by a single monarch (James I of England and VI of Scotland). England and Scotland were formally united under a single parliament, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on [[1 May]] [[1707]].<ref>Murdoch, Alexander, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/96/96282.html England, Scotland, and the Acts of Union (1707)], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Jan 2007, accessed 1 May 2007</ref>

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its current [[head of state]] is Queen [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]].

[[nationalism|Nationalist]] movements of significant importance exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. The UK's values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], and the UK's contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] (or Episcopalian) Church, a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==United Kingdom, Great Britain, England==

There is sometimes confusion over the nomenclature associated with the UK.

The '''United Kingdom''' is the shorter name of the state composed of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has existed since 1801, though in 1922 most of Ireland won its independence, and its formal name changed accordingly. The official name is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. The adjective associated with the United Kingdom is "[[British]]".

* '''Great Britain''' is often used by Americans as a synonym for the UK, but it more properly refers to the largest island in the United Kingdom which contains [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. As a result this term can cause offence in [[Northern Ireland]].
* '''Britain''' is used (without the adjective "Great") as a synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.<ref>number10.gov.uk - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country] - Website of the British Prime Minster.</ref>
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom.

==Anthem==
The ''de facto'' national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. When [[Queen Elizabeth II]] dies or abdicates, her son [[Prince Charles]] will become [[King]], and the anthem will become "God Save the King", with the other words remaining the same (apart from obvious changes in gender pronouns). This same melody is also sung by [[American]] schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".

The constituent nations of the UK have come to have their own anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''[[Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau]]'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''[[Flower of Scotland]]''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''[[Land of Hope and Glory]]'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is most commonly used). In Northern Ireland, the two opposing Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

It should be noted that ''God Save the Queen/King'' is only the national anthem by long usage, since about 1745. It has never been declared so officially.

==Currency==
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d") to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK was one of the three [[European Union]] nations (along with [[Sweden]] and [[Denmark]]) not to join the [[Euro]]. Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are permitted to print their own banknotes, as long as they keep an equivalent amount of sterling in reserve.

==Government==

''See also [[British politics]]''

===Form===
The UK is a constitutional monarchy with [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]] and [[Northern Ireland]] as constituent countries. Unlike some other constitutional monarchies, such as [[Spain]], there is no written Constitution.

===Crown===
The Crown is the term for the executive branch of government. In name it is headed by the [[Queen]], however since 1721 the [[Prime Minister of the UK]] has been de facto ruler ''in the name of the King/Queen''. The monarch and royal family have ceremonial duties, but very little influence in the day-to-day affairs of government.

The current [[Prime Minister]] is [[Gordon Brown]].

===Legislature===
The legislature of the UK consists of Parliament, separated into two divisions: The [[House of Commons]] and the [[House of Lords]].

Members of the House of Commons are known as [[Members of Parliament]] or MPs, and are elected democratically in a single-member constituency system. Elections must be held at least every five years (the exact date is at the discretion of the [[Prime Minister]], although recent tradition has meant that elections are normally held every four years.

Seats in the Lords are appointed by the government, are inherited as ancestral seats, or are assigned to bishops and archbishops of the Church of England. The House of Commons recently voted to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber, but no date has been set for this change. The Lords themselves voted for a wholly appointed chamber. The Lords has fewer powers than the Commons, and acts largely as a revising chamber.

This bicameral style of parliament has been adopted by most former British colonies, including those that formed themselves into federations such as Canada and Australia.

===European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.{{fact}}

==History==
The component nations had at various times been politically independent or unified with each other (peacefully or by invasion) before settling into the current arrangement. The nations share a monarchy, currency, and until the late 20th century, a single parliament (the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, in which practical power lies with the parliament, but the monarchy retain certain powers and a role in the function of the country). Queen [[Elizabeth II]] is the current Head of State of the UK. She is also the Queen of the Commonwealth Realms, which include among others, [[Australia]], [[Canada]], [[Jamaica]], and [[New Zealand]].

In the late 20th century, the formation of the [[Welsh Assembly]], [[Northern Ireland Assembly]], and [[Scottish Parliament]] returned some political independence to the nations which composed the Union, although the main Parliament is still responsible for most decision-making. Other independences exist between the various nations: for example Scotland has long had its own legal system, and Wales and parts of Scotland are bilingual.

There is an ongoing debate about the role of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Before the early 20th Century, [[Ireland]] as a whole was part of the United Kingdom, until a war for independence created the separate [[Republic of Ireland]], with Northern Ireland continuing to be part of the UK. See the articles on [[Northern Ireland]], the [[Republic of Ireland]], and [[Ireland]] for more information.

==Crown Dependencies==
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are 'British Crown Dependencies' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sport==

Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer]], [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in soccer, cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). While not possessing the recent sporting success of countries such as Australia, the UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf.

Domestic sport is dominated by soccer with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League of England. Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool are well known sports club brands and maintain followings across the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and TV.

Some sports notable for being more popular in other countries such as American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

==Religion==
According to the 2001 [[Census]] the religious make-up of the UK at that time was

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Jedi Knight ||390 ||0.7
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}

The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

== See also ==

*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

England

2007-11-07T12:16:59Z

BetsyNewson:

[[Image:England.gif|right|thumb|300px]]
'''England''' is a country on the island of [[Britain]] in the north-west of [[Europe]] and is part of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is home of the [[English]] language currently spoken by perhaps a billion people, and was the seat of an empire that spanned the globe.
It is the location of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and holds a majority of the population, making it politically and economically significant to the UK as a whole.

== History ==

From AD 43, the [[Romans]] invaded [[Britain]] and took control over the southern half of the islands, where they founded the fort of "Londinium", which later became [[London]]. As the [[Roman Empire]] abandoned its frontier territories, [[Germanic]] tribes, specifically the [[Angles]], [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]], began to settle over the majority of the island. Kingdoms formed, such as Northumbria (Anglian) in the north, Wessex (named after the West Saxons) in the south west and Kent (probably founded by Jutes, and now the name of a county) in the south east. Parts of the regions now known as [[Wales]], [[Scotland]], and the county of Cornwall continued to be independent Celtic nations for some time after this. The Germanic invaders were still [[pagan]]s when they conquered part of Britain (e.g. [[Penda]] of Mercia was (allegedly) the last pagan King). The English peoples were converted to [[Christianity]], however, in the 7th Century AD. This happened from two directions: the mission of [[St. Augustine]], emissary of Gregory the Great came initially to Kent, while the (successful) mission to the Northumbrian Angles (and from there to peoples further south) was from the [[Celtic]] church based in northern British monasteries such as [[Iona]] and [[Lindisfarne]]. The entire [[British Isles]] later came under the sway of [[Roman Catholicism]] as the powerful Northumbrian King, Oswy, chose in favour of Roman practice in AD 664 ('Synod of Whitby').

Later, in 1066 AD, the Norman French Duke [[William the Conqueror]] defeated the last [[Anglo-Saxon]] King, [[Harold Godwinson]], and amongst the privileged elite [[French]] language and customs became a part of English culture, however for the most part the common population continued to use their own language and customs.

== Religion ==

England is a country of diverse religions. In 1533 AD King [[Henry VIII]] formed the [[Protestant]] [[Church of England]] after the pope refused to allow a divorce between the king and his wife. Since then, the country has remained primarily Anglican with the notable exception of the Catholic reign of [[Mary I]]. More recently, the number of [[Roman Catholics]] is poised to overtake the number of [[Anglicans]] in the country, a trend that is likely to continue with an influx of migrants from Catholic countries such as [[Ireland]] and recent [[EU]] accession countries such as [[Poland]][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece]. As with the UK as a whole, the significant minority religions include [[Hinduism]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]].

== Influence ==

England is the home of the English language, which was later spread to all parts of the world by the [[British Empire]], along with traditional English concepts such as universal suffrage, parliamentary government, the jury system, and freedom of speech.

== See also ==
*[[English Bill of Rights]]
*[[English Civil War ]]

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:England| ]]