Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Paternity test

2007-09-04T00:58:45Z

Billwsu:

A '''paternity test''' is used to ascertain who is the [[father]] of another person. It is frequently done by [[DNA]] analysis of the [[mother]], [[child]], and the possible father. Since a person's DNA is the same in all of their cells, DNA testing can be done with a [[blood]] sample, a swab of [[skin]], or a lock of [[hair]]. A comparison of one's DNA sequence to someone else's will show if either of them is the parent of the other. Paternity tests are usuall done by courts on [[African American]] males. This is because this group, statistically, is more likley to have children out of wedlock. Also [[African American]] females are statistically more likley to have numerous partners and be unaware of who the father may be.

--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

John Kerry

2007-08-28T20:57:10Z

Billwsu: /* Controversy over comments on Iraq and education */

[[Image:John-kerry.jpg‎|right|thumb]]
'''John Forbes Kerry''' (b. December 11, 1943) has been the junior United States Senator from [[Massachusetts]] since 1984; he is considered one of the more [[liberal]] senators<ref>http://nationaljournal.c om/voteratings/sen/lib.htm</ref><ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm</ref>. In 2004, he ran an unsuccessful bid for the [[United States of America|United States]] [[President of the United States of America|presidency]] as the [[Democratic Party]]'s nominee, losing to [[Republican Party|Republican]] incumbent president [[George W. Bush]]. Kerry is currently the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

==Controversy over 2004 Election Financing==

In 2007 the [[Federal Election Commission]] finally issued a draft report <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2007/mtgdoc07-37.pdf Agenda Document No. 07-37], Federal Election Commission, Washignton, D.C., May 21, 2007.</ref> stating Kerry spent spent $1.4 million more than federal rules allowed during his 2004 Presidential bid. In order to receive the public funds, Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and his running mate, former North Carolina Sen. [[John Edwards]], agreed to spend $74.6 million or less on their general election campaign against President Bush. Kerry’s campaign may have to repay the overspending to the U.S. Treasury, since his unsuccessful general election campaign was funded by tax dollars. The draft audit also found the campaign’s media vendor improperly invested and earned interest on public funds. And auditors allege the campaign misreported its media buys and its outstanding debt. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4244.html FEC draft: Kerry broke spending limits], Kenneth P. Vogel, May 30, 2007.</ref>

==Military Career ==

Kerry enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve in February, 1966, and began active service that August as Ensign aboard the USS Gridley, a Guided Missile Frigate deployed in the Gulf of Tonkin. During his tour of duty, Kerry requested his second tour be in Vietnam, listing his preferred position as commandeering a Fast Patrol Craft (PCF) or "Swift Boat." His request was granted, and on November 17, 1968 he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. During his service, he received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and a total of three Purple Hearts during combat operations inside Vietnam, and after his third injury was permitted to request reassignment as per Navy instruction 1300.39, Leaving Vietnam on April 2, 1969. Upon returning stateside, he served as personal aide to Rear Admiral Walter Schlech until March 1970 when his active duty obligation had ended. Kerry continued serving in the Naval Reserves until February 1972.

==Opposition to the Vietnam War==

Kerry belonged to Vietnam Veterans Against the War ([[VVAW]]), where he supported the anti-war movement.
[[Image:437px-The New Soldier.jpg|right|thumb|Kerry's book, ''The New Soldier'' with [[VVAW]] activists flying the American flag upside down.]]
Controversially referring to US servicemen in Vietnam as having been sent "''to die for the biggest mistake in history''," Kerry alleged that the military had "''created a monster''" in the form of violence-prone American soldiers, and recounted that soldiers had personally recollected stories of having "''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads''," of Vietnamese citizens and rampaging across Vietnam "''[razing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan''". <ref>[http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html John Kerry's Testimony before the Senate Foerein Relations Committee, April 22, 1971], Editorial Notes by Dr. Ernest Bolt, University of Richmond. </ref> That these acts were "''not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command''." <ref>Ibid.</ref>

On NBC's ''Meet The Press'' in 1971, Kerry was asked whether he had personally committed atrocities in Vietnam. He responded:

:"''There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.''"<ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html Vietnam 30 Years later: What John Kerry Said on Meet the Press], George Mason University, History News Network</ref>

During his 2004 campaign for President, several groups were formed, most notably the [[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]]<ref>[http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php Swift Vets and POWs for Truth]</ref>, to counter the charges of "[[war crimes]]" Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans (see below) and to call Kerry's military record into question, accusing him of inflicting his own wounds,<ref>[http://www.learnedhand.com/kerryunfitepilogue.htm John Kerry - Unfit For Command]</ref> going to unusual lengths to obtain his Purple Hearts,<ref>[http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/FD040830.html ''Forging a Paper Hero: The Mystery of Kerry’s Medals] </ref> and attacking unarmed civilians. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had been publicly criticized, firstly because no member of the group actually served on the boats that Kerry commanded or witnessed the events described, and secondly for internal consistency and contradiction. As an example, one member of the group was Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, who as late as 2003 expressed having "no regrets or second thoughts at all" about writing Kerry up for his Silver Star,<ref>[http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml ''John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making] </ref> only claim the exact opposite the following year.,<ref>[http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp ''Snopes.com: Service Mettle] </ref>

An internal memorandum for Attorney General [[John Mitchell]] from a Nixon staffer released by the National Archives in July 2007 revealed the Nixon White House had considered recruiting John Kerry. The memorandum states in part,
{{Cquote|He was asked the direct question of how he voted in 1968. He said "if he had voted (which he did not), he would have voted for Nixon." <ref>[http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/donated/042671_chotiner.pdf Memo from Chotiner to Mitchell], April 26, 1971.</ref> }}

==Iraq War==

Kerry voted to give President George W. Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in 2002, although in his 2004 Presidential bid he campaigned as being opposed to the war, and now says, regarding his vote to give the President that authority, "There's nothing - nothing - in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/mistakes-and-responsibili_b_31482.html</ref> Kerry's initial vote on the matter and subsequent revision on the topic caused many to label him a "flip-flopper" during his 2004 presidential bid.

==Controversy over comments on Iraq and education==
On October 30, 2006, eight days before the 2006 elections, Kerry was a headline speaker at a campaign rally being held for unsuccessful Democratic [[California]] gubernatorial candidate [[Phil Angelides]] at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California. Speaking to an audience composed mainly of college students, Kerry said, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." After being criticized from President Bush and other leaders, Kerry stated "Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how. I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy." After two days, Kerry wrote an apology on his [[blog]], stating that he was sorry if anyone misinterprete his comments.

==Books by John Kerry==

* John Kerry, [http://www.freekerrybook.org/documents/THENEWSOLDIERPHOTOS_000.PDF ''The New Soldier''], edited by David Thorne, Macmillan Pub Co (October 1971). ISBN-10: 002073610X

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/John Kerry|Articles about '''John Kerry''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kerry, John}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:Conservative

2007-08-28T20:48:43Z

Billwsu:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Paternity test

2007-05-22T20:03:19Z

Billwsu: Explain uses of paternity testing by society

Methodism

2007-05-22T19:56:34Z

Billwsu:

'''Methodism''' is a [[Christian]] denomination partly based on the teachings of [[John Wesley]]. It is so named because Wesley was strongly influenced by the writings of St [[Methodius]].

== Colleges and Universities with Methodist Affiliation ==
Northwestern University (Illinois)
Ohio Wesleyan (Ohio)
Baldwin Wallace (Ohio)
Otterbein (Ohio)
Defiance (Ohio)
Kenyon College (Ohio)
Ohio Northern (Ohio)
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 15:56, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

{{stub}}

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]

Roman Catholic Church

2007-05-22T14:06:17Z

Billwsu:

The '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal"). The [[Roman Catholic Church]] is headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is one of the largest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches the Pope is the successor of [[Saint Peter]].

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord [[Jesus Christ]]. ''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church, though many Protestants object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term "Catholic". Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==

According to Catholic claims, the original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. After an initial period of persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century by Constantine I. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. This Catholic Christian Church underwent in 1054 a great schism that divided the Church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called as the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second schism was the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. During the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) the Catholic Church undertook the most comprehensive reforms. She stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. She also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The Eastern branches do not have a single umbrella organization. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches. Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches recognize each other as part of the universal, or Catholic Church. For example, each of them accepts each others' Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which their is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.

== Catholics as Christians ==
Catholics are not regarded as Christians and are only notable as a sub-sect of Christianity.<ref>http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Marykerygma05.html Mary is not the Kerygma]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/RFK_daughter.html Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: Failing America's Faithful]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/ChristNietzscheIslam.html A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html Birds of a Feather and Trojan Horse Islam]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

Roman Catholic Church

2007-05-22T13:52:03Z

Billwsu: /* Controversy */

The '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal"). The [[Roman Catholic Church]] is headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is one of the largest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches the Pope is the successor of [[Saint Peter]].

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord [[Jesus Christ]]. ''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church, though many Protestants object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term "Catholic". Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==

According to Catholic claims, the original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. After an initial period of persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century by Constantine I. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. This Catholic Christian Church underwent in 1054 a great schism that divided the Church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called as the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second schism was the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. During the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) the Catholic Church undertook the most comprehensive reforms. She stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. She also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The Eastern branches do not have a single umbrella organization. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches. Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches recognize each other as part of the universal, or Catholic Church. For example, each of them accepts each others' Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which their is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.

== Catholics as Christians ==
Catholics are not regarded as Christians and are only notable as a sub-sect of Christianity.

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Marykerygma05.html Mary is not the Kerygma]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/RFK_daughter.html Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: Failing America's Faithful]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/ChristNietzscheIslam.html A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html Birds of a Feather and Trojan Horse Islam]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

Dinosaur

2007-05-22T13:39:54Z

Billwsu: /* Different Perspectives */

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] word δεινόςσαύρα, meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

* '''Stegosaurus''' was a dinosaur with plates on its back and spines on its tail. Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.{{fact}}

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth.

Christians are often depicted as believing that God planted the fossils to test their faith, and it's true that dinosaurs never existed.
However, few creationists believe this.
Most people accept that dinosaurs existed.
Young-Earth creationists, however, reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===

[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.

* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />

* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.<ref>Talk.Origins argues ([http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html Claim CH712], ''TalkOrigins.org'') that the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is based on the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China. CreationWiki's response ([http://creationwiki.org/Dragons_were_dinosaurs Dragons were dinosaurs] (rebuttal of Talk.Origins' claim CH712)) is that the fossils reminded people of the legends, not that the fossils inspired the legends.</ref>
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.

* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Jurassic]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine Biotechnology Australia [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. University Of California, Berkeley[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth marinebio.org[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====

Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

----

===Evolutionary Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago.
In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref>

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Kangaroo

2007-03-11T03:34:54Z

Billwsu:

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Gray Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They currently are native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four different sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]]: the Western Gray Kangaroo, the Eastern Gray Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, designed by God for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Male kangaroos will go around the mob checking the females’ [[cloaca]]. Many times, males are rejected by the females because of size if they are small. In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male, who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not.

If the female is responsive to the male, she raises her tail and the male will follow her. Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub before mating. When the female is ready to mate she will arch her tail.

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Gray Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

==Origins==

According to the origins theory model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp "What about continental drift?"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/> However, kangaroo fossils have never been found in Central Asia (where the Ark ended up), only in the Americas, western Europe, Antarctica, and of course Australia.<ref>http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html</ref>

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the theory of evolutionists that kangaroos evolved from some sort of [[opossum]]-like ur-marsupial millions of years ago.

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

Homeschooling

2007-03-11T03:20:16Z

Billwsu:

Homeschooling is opting out of formal public and private schools in order to educate children in the home or in specially arranged classes or cooperatives. Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s.

The origin of the U. S. homeschooling movement is often credited to John Holt and his 1964 book ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> However, the movement was also catalyzed when social conservatives became alarmed at the 1962 U. S. Supreme Court ruling which banned prayer in public schools.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first New York Times story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the Westchester County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only Christian fundamentalists any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."

== High-achieving Christians who were educated at home ==
A disproportionate number of high achievers have throughout history have been Christians who were educated at home. Here is a list of some of them:
 

 [[Leonardo da Vinci]]
 [[Claude Monet]]
 [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]
 
 [[Stonewall Jackson]]
 [[John Paul Jones]]
 [[Robert E. Lee]]
 [[Douglas MacArthur]]
 [[George Patton]]
 
 [[Alexander Graham Bell]]
 [[Thomas Edison]]
 [[Cyrus McCormick]]
 
 [[George Washington]]
 [[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
 [[James Madison]]
 [[William Henry Harrison]]
 [[John Tyler]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
 
 [[Joan of Arc]]
 [[John the Baptist]]
 [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] (Though as the son of God he did not need an education, so His education does not matter)

 [[William Cary]]
 [[Jonathan Edwards]]
 [[Dwight L. Moody]]
 [[John Newton]]
 [[Charles Wesley]]
 [[John Wesley]]
 [[Brigham Young]]
 
 [[George Washington Carver]]
 [[Pierre Curie]]
 [[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
 [[Blaise Pascal]]
 [[Bernhard Riemann]]
 [[Booker T. Washington]]
 [[Adam Yahiye Gadahn]][http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian]
 [[John Walker Lindh]][http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm] Checkered educational history, in and out of public schools, partly homeschooled
 [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]][http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm] (private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton)
 

 [[Patrick Henry]]
 [[William Penn]]
 [[Henry Clay]]
 
 [[John Jay]]
 [[John Marshall]]
 [[John Rutledge]]
 
 [[Hans Christian Andersen]]
 [[Pearl S. Buck]]
 [[Agatha Christie]]
 [[Charles Dickens]]
 [[Bret Harte]]
 [[C.S. Lewis]]
 [[Sean O’Casey]]
 [[George Bernard Shaw]]
 [[Mark Twain]]
 [[Daniel Webster]]
 
 [[George Clymer]]
 [[William Livingston]]
 [[George Mason]]
 [[Charles Pickney III]]
 [[George Wyeth]]
 
 [[Ansel Adams]]
 [[Clara Barton]]
 [[John Burroughs]]
 [[Andrew Carnegie]]
 [[George Rogers Clark]]
 [[Florence Nightingale]]
 [[Leo Tolstoy]]
 
 [[Charles Fletcher Lummis]]
 [[Christopher Paolini]]

==Footnotes==

<references/>

Homeschooling

2007-03-11T03:18:30Z

Billwsu: Churchill went to a boarding school (harrow School) and was educated from preteen till enrollment in a university

Homeschooling is opting out of formal public and private schools in order to educate children in the home or in specially arranged classes or cooperatives. Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s.

The origin of the U. S. homeschooling movement is often credited to John Holt and his 1964 book ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> However, the movement was also catalyzed when social conservatives became alarmed at the 1962 U. S. Supreme Court ruling which banned prayer in public schools.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first New York Times story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the Westchester County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only Christian fundamentalists any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."

== High-achieving Christians who were educated at home ==
A disproportionate number of high achievers have throughout history have been Christians who were educated at home. Here is a list of some of them:
 

 [[Leonardo da Vinci]]
 [[Claude Monet]]
 [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]
 
 [[Stonewall Jackson]]
 [[John Paul Jones]]
 [[Robert E. Lee]]
 [[Douglas MacArthur]]
 [[George Patton]]
 
 [[Alexander Graham Bell]]
 [[Thomas Edison]]
 [[Cyrus McCormick]]
 
 [[George Washington]]
 [[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
 [[James Madison]]
 [[William Henry Harrison]]
 [[John Tyler]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
 
 [[Joan of Arc]]
 [[John the Baptist]]
 [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]]
 [[William Cary]]
 [[Jonathan Edwards]]
 [[Dwight L. Moody]]
 [[John Newton]]
 [[Charles Wesley]]
 [[John Wesley]]
 [[Brigham Young]]
 
 [[George Washington Carver]]
 [[Pierre Curie]]
 [[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
 [[Blaise Pascal]]
 [[Bernhard Riemann]]
 [[Booker T. Washington]]
 [[Adam Yahiye Gadahn]][http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian]
 [[John Walker Lindh]][http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm] Checkered educational history, in and out of public schools, partly homeschooled
 [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]][http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm] (private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton)
 

 [[Patrick Henry]]
 [[William Penn]]
 [[Henry Clay]]
 
 [[John Jay]]
 [[John Marshall]]
 [[John Rutledge]]
 
 [[Hans Christian Andersen]]
 [[Pearl S. Buck]]
 [[Agatha Christie]]
 [[Charles Dickens]]
 [[Bret Harte]]
 [[C.S. Lewis]]
 [[Sean O’Casey]]
 [[George Bernard Shaw]]
 [[Mark Twain]]
 [[Daniel Webster]]
 
 [[George Clymer]]
 [[William Livingston]]
 [[George Mason]]
 [[Charles Pickney III]]
 [[George Wyeth]]
 
 [[Ansel Adams]]
 [[Clara Barton]]
 [[John Burroughs]]
 [[Andrew Carnegie]]
 [[George Rogers Clark]]
 [[Florence Nightingale]]
 [[Leo Tolstoy]]
 
 [[Charles Fletcher Lummis]]
 [[Christopher Paolini]]

==Footnotes==

<references/>

Homeschooling

2007-03-11T03:16:03Z

Billwsu: the wright brothers went to patterson high school, I work on their archival collection. they were not homeschooled

Homeschooling is opting out of formal public and private schools in order to educate children in the home or in specially arranged classes or cooperatives. Parents take a more active role in the education of their children when they homeschool.

The primary reason for homeschooling is to give the child a better education. A close second in reasons, however, is to avoid the culture of public school and its many adverse effects of hostility to Christianity and parental control, political bias, boredom, confusion, depression, etc.

In the United States, opting out of public schools is not new. When Thomas Edison's public school teacher said he was "addled," Edison's mother took him out of public school and taught him at home. But because of compulsory education laws—the first was passed in Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 every state had them—schooling at home was a violation of truancy laws, and was rare until the 1970s.

The origin of the U. S. homeschooling movement is often credited to John Holt and his 1964 book ''How Children Fail.'' Holt was "a left-winger who regarded schools as instruments of the bureaucratic-industrial complex."<ref>Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge, ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.'' Penguin, 2004. pp. 190-1</ref> However, the movement was also catalyzed when social conservatives became alarmed at the 1962 U. S. Supreme Court ruling which banned prayer in public schools.

Truancy laws brought pioneering homeschoolers into conflict with local officials. The first New York Times story on "home schooling" appeared in 1974, and concerned two parents charged with "educational neglect" by the Westchester County Department of Social Services. Tests showed that they performed at or about grade level "except for one who is a little slow in reading," and the parents received strong support from a state senator.<ref>"Parents Accused in Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' July 28, 1974, p. 45</ref> By the mid-1980s the ''Times'' was running articles with titles like "Schooling in the Home: A Growing Alternative" and "There Are Benefits In Homeschooling," and states were legalizing homeschooling<ref>Belluck, Pam (1998), "Life After Home Schooling," ''The New York Times,'' November 1, 1998, p. ED26: "Some 15 years after states began legalizing home schooling in earnest, these early graduates are starting to make their way in the world."</ref> A 1997 article said "It's not only Christian fundamentalists any more" and a 2003 article noted "Unhappy in Class, More Are Learning at Home."

== High-achieving Christians who were educated at home ==
A disproportionate number of high achievers have throughout history have been Christians who were educated at home. Here is a list of some of them:
 

 [[Leonardo da Vinci]]
 [[Claude Monet]]
 [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]
 
 [[Stonewall Jackson]]
 [[John Paul Jones]]
 [[Robert E. Lee]]
 [[Douglas MacArthur]]
 [[George Patton]]
 
 [[Alexander Graham Bell]]
 [[Thomas Edison]]
 [[Cyrus McCormick]]
 
 [[George Washington]]
 [[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
 [[James Madison]]
 [[William Henry Harrison]]
 [[John Tyler]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
 
 [[Joan of Arc]]
 [[John the Baptist]]
 [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]]
 [[William Cary]]
 [[Jonathan Edwards]]
 [[Dwight L. Moody]]
 [[John Newton]]
 [[Charles Wesley]]
 [[John Wesley]]
 [[Brigham Young]]
 
 [[George Washington Carver]]
 [[Pierre Curie]]
 [[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
 [[Blaise Pascal]]
 [[Bernhard Riemann]]
 [[Booker T. Washington]]
 [[Adam Yahiye Gadahn]][http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian]
 [[John Walker Lindh]][http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives%20II/ReelingFromLiesofHM.htm] Checkered educational history, in and out of public schools, partly homeschooled
 [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]][http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm] (private tutors at home through age 14, then entered Groton)
 
 [[Winston Churchill]]
 [[Patrick Henry]]
 [[William Penn]]
 [[Henry Clay]]
 
 [[John Jay]]
 [[John Marshall]]
 [[John Rutledge]]
 
 [[Hans Christian Andersen]]
 [[Pearl S. Buck]]
 [[Agatha Christie]]
 [[Charles Dickens]]
 [[Bret Harte]]
 [[C.S. Lewis]]
 [[Sean O’Casey]]
 [[George Bernard Shaw]]
 [[Mark Twain]]
 [[Daniel Webster]]
 
 [[George Clymer]]
 [[William Livingston]]
 [[George Mason]]
 [[Charles Pickney III]]
 [[George Wyeth]]
 
 [[Ansel Adams]]
 [[Clara Barton]]
 [[John Burroughs]]
 [[Andrew Carnegie]]
 [[George Rogers Clark]]
 [[Florence Nightingale]]
 [[Leo Tolstoy]]
 
 [[Charles Fletcher Lummis]]
 [[Christopher Paolini]]

==Footnotes==

<references/>

Facebook

2007-03-08T05:02:04Z

Billwsu:

== Facebook ==
Facebook is a social website used by college students and high school students. Students can upload pictures of themselves, write blogs, and add people as their friends thus creating a larg social network. It is often used to promote immoral drinking parties and homosexual behavior (there are many homosexual groups to join and men can list 'men' under their attraction interests).

--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 00:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

United States of America

2007-03-08T04:54:07Z

Billwsu:

{{stub}}
The United States of America (commonly referred to as America) was founded in 1776 by [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other [[Founding Fathers]] and formally established as the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788.

The [[Declaration of Independence]] acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Unitarian]] [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Conservatives argue that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of Religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Some Christian groups such as the Quakers, Brethren, and Unitarian churches have often found the policies of the United States to not live up to the Christianity of our Founding Fathers. Examples are the death penalty, covert CIA killings, and general lack of civil rights over the centuries (which is construed as being against "Love Thy Neighbor", the greatest commandment of all. for more information on the subject please check the [[Iran-Contra Scandal]] page. Also visit Quaker website.<ref>[http://www.afsc.org]</ref>
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

United States of America

2007-03-08T04:39:07Z

Billwsu:

{{stub}}
The United States of America (commonly referred to as America) was founded in 1776 by [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other [[Founding Fathers]] and formally established as the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788.

The [[Declaration of Independence]] acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Unitarian]] [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Conservatives argue that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of Religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Often the policies of the United States has not lived up to the Christianity of our Founding Fathers. Examples are the death penalty, covert CIA killings, and general lack of civil rights over the centuries (which is construed as being against "Love Thy Neighbor", the greatest commandment of all)
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

United States of America

2007-03-08T04:38:56Z

Billwsu:

{{stub}}
The United States of America (commonly referred to as America) was founded in 1776 by [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other [[Founding Fathers]] and formally established as the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788.

The [[Declaration of Independence]] acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Unitarian]] [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Conservatives argue that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of Religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Often the policies of the United States has not lived up to the Christianity of our Founding Fathers. Examples are the death penalty, covert CIA killings, and general lack of civil rights over the centuries (which is construed as being against "Love Thy Neighbor", the greatest commandment of all)--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Homosexuality

2007-03-08T04:34:36Z

Billwsu: it was in an australian news report

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible as an egregiously sinful act.

== Biblical Views on Homosexuality ==

Homosexuality is referred to four times in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and the only reference in the New Testament is in the letters of Paul.

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 18:22 - ''You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.''
* Leviticus 20:13 - ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.''

=== New Testament (Epistles) ===

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
* Romans 1:26-27 - 26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27 and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

== Homosexuality and Marriage==

For many years, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, the organization de-listed homosexuality in 1973.[http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html] Since that time, homosexuals have advocated for recognition of their civil rights and for equal protection under the law.

Legal marriage between same-sex couples is now recognized in several European nations as well as in Canada, South Africa and [[Massachusett]]s. In some other states such as Connecticut a more limited recognition of same-sex relationships is available, called a "civil union". Many other states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed anywhere and some groups have pushed for Constitutional amendment barring the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

==Homosexuality in Humans and Genetics and Environment==

Statistical studies give ample evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, although it is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal ''Science'' it is reported that, "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993). [http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp][http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm]

== Homosexuality in Nature ==
In some jurisdictions, some forms of sexual activity are referred to by the legal term "unnatural act," a term which originated in church canon law. Non-zoologists have sometimes made the incorrect inference that homosexual behavior does not occur in the zoological world and have used it as a talking point when attacking homosexuality. This has created an interest in the side issue whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation."

Homosexual-like behavior is common. For example, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling," cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation.

Sexual-like behavior between animals of the same sex is common. Some animals in which it occurs include:

* [[Bonobos]],<ref>Parker, Sue Taylor,Robert W. Mitchell, H. Lyn Miles (1999), ''The Mentalities of Gorillas and Orangutans: comparative perspectives.'' Cambridge University Press. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521580277&id=h4_VnW-HGAcC&pg=RA1-PA54&lpg=RA1-PA54&dq=bonobo+homosexual&sig=rdHH7YmjFiR7x5ONwt2e1EdfrBk p. 54]
</ref>
* [[Dolphins]]<ref>Smith, Dinitia (2004), "Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate," ''The New York Times,''
Saturday, February 7, 2004, as published on the San Francisco Chronicle website[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL]: "Bonobos are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex... 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual... male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild"</ref> and other vertebrate species. See also [[http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals livescience]]
* [[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html National Geographic]] link
Female Koala bears also express homosexual tendancies only in captivity.
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:34, 7 March 2007 (EST)
A 1996 article, published by an organization commited to "treatment" of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html]

==References==

*[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth] by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
*[http://creationwiki.org/Homosexuality CreationWiki: Homosexuality]

Satan

2007-03-08T04:31:09Z

Billwsu:

'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] who rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]], where he leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s).

Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil).

Satan, in the Book of Job, is used by God to test the faith of Job (who reamined true to God through hardships).

Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to [[exorcise]] his influence.

Satan, is also called by several different names (deceiver, Bealzebub, Lucifer, et al). The notion of Sata, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.

In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails.
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Satan

2007-03-08T04:30:51Z

Billwsu:

'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] who rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]], where he leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s).

Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil).
Satan, in the Book of Job, is used by God to test the faith of Job (who reamined true to God through hardships).
Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to [[exorcise]] his influence.

Satan, is also called by several different names (deceiver, Bealzebub, Lucifer, et al). The notion of Sata, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.

In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails.
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Satan

2007-03-08T04:30:30Z

Billwsu:

'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] who rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]], where he leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s).

Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil).
Satan, in the Book of Job, is used by God to test the faith of Job (who reamined true to God through hardships).
Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to [[exorcise]] his influence.
Satan, is also called by several different names (deceiver, Bealzebub, Lucifer, et al). The notion of Sata, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions.
In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails.
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 23:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Islam

2007-03-08T04:13:23Z

Billwsu:

Islam is a religion of Abraham that has grown to be the second largest religion with over 1.4 billion followers. The word "Islam" means submission to God. The followers of Islam are called Muslims. Muslims practice complete monotheism, worshiping Allah and believing Muhammad to be his last and greatest prophet. They live by the Koran, the pure and holy word of Allah that must be treated with the utmost respect. Muslims wash their hands before reading the book, which is considered complete and perfect only in the original Arabic, and burn old copies instead of throwing them away. Muslims follow the five pillars of Islam, which are straightforward and easy to understand. The belief in one god is clear, and encourages familiarity. Five daily prayers are recited facing toward Mecca with specific movements and times. Giving to the poor keeps them from becoming greedy or putting too much stake in worldly possessions. A month of fasting brings them closer to Allah. A pilgrimage to Mecca shows respect for the prophet Muhammad and his journey. Intoxication, gambling, stealing, adultery, and false accusations of adultery along with other offenses, are forbidden and highly punishable. Because Islam is an uncomplicated religion to live by, it is sure to continue in its popularity around the world.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Mecca, the holy city of the Muslim's]]

The Five Pillars of Islam are:

1. To have submit to the one god, Allah, whose prophet was Muhammad.

2. Pray to Allah five times each day while facing Mecca.

3. Fast during daylight hours for the entire month of Ramadan. No food is eaten in that month during daylight hours. Fasting strengthens the body and soul.

4. Almsgiving: this means Muslims must donate to the poor.

5. A Muslim must take a Hajj or pilgrimage at least once during his lifetime to Mecca where Muhammad himself made a hajj from A.D. 629 to 632.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Pages from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Paganism==

Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Coman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though Allah (arabic for God) is cited in the Koran as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Judaism and Christianity). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Orthodox Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the [[pig-god]] [[Jamal]]. <ref>Ibid.</ref> There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism which ended after the Genisis story of Abraham and Isaac (e.g., at Uhud). <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

CE

2007-03-08T03:53:10Z

Billwsu: The previous is opinionated. "only plausible explanation" and "The conclusion is obvious" are opinion statements. Look i left the message of the article the same. if you want people to listen,clean it

The term "Common Era" (CE) is an attempt to erase the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world. "Common Era" has no real meaning, and even the origin of this term is unclear. The 1972 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has no entry for "Common Era."

The established calendar dating system is based on the approximate birthday of [[Jesus]], and no one disputes that. But this birth did not begin a "common" era, or any immediate change in history. The 1997 [[Merriam-Webster]]'s Collegiate Dictionary gives a date of 1889 for the origin of the term "Common Era," but there is no indication of who began using it then, and why. Some claim it is a substitute for an occasional reference to the "Vulgar Era," with "vulgar" being Latin for "common" but acquiring a derogatory English meaning over time.

One explanation for its use, often promoted by the 'religious right', is that "Common Era" is an attempt to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar. These groups argue that this is discrimination as similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names in the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods, have not been undertaken. There is a strong counter argument stating that such a name change for days would require a confusing new system, and effect markets.:<ref>[personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/calendar-reform.html]</ref>

One conclusion drawn from the argument of the religious right is that the usage of the term "Common Era" seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. These groups have argued that government schools favor the use of "Common Era" dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity, and not because of the terms acceptance and common use in the science fields.

A question and answer session with a rabbi about the use of "Common Era," illustrates the fact that many in the educated class are unaware of the terms origin and often give it little creedance. Judaism:<ref>http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/263/Q3/</ref>

Dear Rabbi:

I would like to know why we say "before the Common Era" and "Common Era" (BCE and CE).

I mean, why do we call it "common?" ...

Dear Viviane [],

When I was a school boy I thought that CE stood for "The Common Error."

Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." '''But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either.'''

== Sources ==
<references/>
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 22:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

CE

2007-03-08T03:41:00Z

Billwsu: The original document read like a cotton mather sermon, it violated rule no 6. i edited it a bit but left it with the same tone the site wanted, it sounds cleaner.