Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:New Scientist

2007-11-07T13:09:41Z

BornAgainBrit: New page: New Scientist used to be a very good magazine, but in recent years I see it turning a lot more towards sensationalism to increase its readership. - BornAgainBrit

New Scientist used to be a very good magazine, but in recent years I see it turning a lot more towards sensationalism to increase its readership. - BornAgainBrit

Hydrogen

2007-11-07T13:02:10Z

BornAgainBrit: Im not an expert, but I can recognise the section on use as a fuel is inaccurate... ive taken it out. Someone who knows what they are talking about can replace it.

{{Element | name=Hydrogen | symbol=H | anumber=1 | amass=1.001 amu | noe=1 | class=Gas| cstructure=Unknown | color=Unknown | }}
'''Hydrogen''' has the [[atomic symbol]] H and the [[atomic number]] of 1. Hydrogen is the most abundant of all the chemical elements, the [[universe]] is composed of roughly 75% hydrogen. However naturally occurring elemental hydrogen on [[Earth]] is extremely rare.

==Composition of the Atom==
One [[isotope]] of the hydrogen [[atom]] is made up of one [[proton]] and one [[electron]] with no [[neutron]]s. This is called [[protium]]. There is also [[deuterium]], with one proton, one electron, and one neutron, and [[tritium]] with one proton, one electron and TWO neutrons. Tritium is [[radioactive]].

==Compounds==
Hydrogen can be found in both [[organic]] and [[inorganic]] compounds (for example, [[hydrocarbon|hydrocarbons]] and metal hydrides, respectively. Scientists have determined that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. It is an important component of [[water]].

Talk:Heart

2007-11-07T13:00:39Z

BornAgainBrit: Overboard!

==Bible==
I removed the list of Bible references again, and before anyone goes and adds it again, could you please justify it's inclusion?--[[User:Czaryah|Czaryah]] 17:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

For an article on anatomy there does seem to be a preponderance of Biblical quotations and I'm not sure what their purpose is. Surely anyone with a decent Bible reference program can find these for themselves. There was also a browser add-in mentioned on the main page and Aschlafly's talk pages several days ago but I can't seem to find it now. I am posting this so there can be a discussion about it rather than just removing them ''en bloc''. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I kind of agree that they are out of place. We could at least cut down on them. If you do remove some, type "see talk page" in the info box. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think it would be sufficient to leave the reference in the first paragraph about the Bible's general viewpoint. However, I'll give it 24 hours or so to see if there is any other response. Hopefully my spelling corrections will flag other editors' watchlists but I'll add a temporary see talk page notice. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The article still contains a giant list of random sentences from the Bible that happen to contain the word "heart." The list isn't informative in the least about the heart, and while it does give some context for the use of the word, there are multiple, redundant examples for every usage. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:03, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I like bible quotes as much as any Christian, but this seems a bit much. Is this an over-enthusiastic Christian trying to include God in everything (as they should, in a more abstract way)? Or is it a liberal smear, trying to fill Conservapedia with meaningless drivel to harm its reputation? In either case... needs a rewrite. - [[User:BornAgainBrit|BornAgainBrit]]

Culture War

2007-10-22T13:13:05Z

BornAgainBrit: 're-alignment' turned into 'polarization.' Rewrote a sentence I couldn't understand.

The phrase "'''Culture War'''" has been used to describe the dramatic polarization that has recently taken place in [[United States|American]] politics. The observation is that on an increasing number of issues, from [[abortion]] to [[gun control]] to [[tax|taxes]], there are two definable poles in American politics, commonly refered to as the ''left'' or ''liberal'' position and ''right'' or ''conservative'' position. Alignment to the positions is typically defined by world-view - it is rare for an organisation to adopt the liberal position on one issue and the conservative on another. It In his book, ''Culture Wars'' , [[James Davison Hunter]] describes this polarity as the impulse toward [[Progressivism]] and the impulse toward [[Orthodoxy]]. [http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/josman/culture/]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Culture War]]

Talk:How Old is the Earth According to the Bible?

2007-10-19T15:14:09Z

BornAgainBrit:

Is this supposed to be a debate, or an article, or what?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 16:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know if this article is worth keeping, but I've rewritten it and added a couple of halfway decent sources (though they're not as good as I'd like).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 16:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== How old is the earth according to the bible? ==

The Bible doesn’t specify how old the earth is the estimate of the earth being 6000 years old was only [[Bishop James Ussher|Bishop James Ussher's]] calculations and many people such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists believe that the idea of the earth being billions of years old does not contradict the bible.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 10:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Cheryl Sullenger

2007-10-19T14:51:54Z

BornAgainBrit: Hard to research right now... my employer proxy blocks all sites relating to abortion.

Cheryl Sullenger is an pro-life activist. In 1988 she was arrested for and confessed to a conspiricy to bomb the Alvarado Medical Center abortion clinic. She was sentenced to two and a half years, was released after only two. Having since renounced violance, she now works as a Senior Policy Advisor for [[Operation Rescue]] and serves on the Central Committee of the 75th District of the San Diego [[Republican Party]].

Cheryl Sullenger

2007-10-19T14:46:44Z

BornAgainBrit: Stub. Needs sources.

Cheryl Sullenger is an pro-life activist. In 1988 she was arrested for and confessed to a conspiricy to bomb the Alvarado Medical Center abortion clinic. She was sentenced to two and a half years, was released after only two. Having since renounced violance, she now works for [[Operation Rescue]] and serves on the Central Committee of the 75th District of the San Diego Republican Party.

XXXChurch.com

2007-08-22T17:46:09Z

BornAgainBrit: Stub. Im not going to write this in detail, someone else can. I just provided an outline.

XXX Church is a Christian ministry specialising in preeching to those currently or formerly involved with production or distribution of [[pornography]] and supporting those harmed by it.

== criticisms ==

== links ==

xxchurch.com

Common descent

2007-07-18T17:35:36Z

BornAgainBrit: Its not entirely an evolutionist thing.

'''Common descent''' is an idea in [[Biology]] which is applied on two levels, with a group of species being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader conjecture which asserts that all organisms on earth originated from common ancestors. The idea of common descent is usually associated with Darwin's [[Theory of Evolution]], but creationists often suggest it as a solution to the difficulty of the Ark capacity limit.

Darwin wrote:
:"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the [[Silurian]] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

==Common Descent Unplausible==

Dr. Jonathon Wells published a book in 2002 entitled ''[[Icons of Evolution]]''. Dr. Wells says that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref><ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
Also, he says that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm (Wells)]

On the other hand, noted evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref>http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientists have written regarding the nature of [[Haeckel]]'s work and how a prestigious German science journal published a work that they believe was invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>

Some advocates of ''Intelligent Design'' accept common descent. Most notably Michael Behe:
"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biology]][[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2007-07-18T17:01:20Z

BornAgainBrit:

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

Veto

2007-07-13T17:36:39Z

BornAgainBrit:

The procedure established under the [[United_States_Constitution|Constitution]] by which the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America|President]] refuses to approve a [[bill]] or [[joint resolution]] and thus prevents its enactment into law. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it originated. The President usually returns a vetoed bill with a message indicating his reasons for rejecting the measure. The veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and the [[United_States_House_of_Representatives|House]].<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/veto.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==Veto Override==
The process by which each chamber of [[Congress]] votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the President's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==Item Veto==
Authority to veto part rather than all of an [[appropriation|appropriations]] act. The President does not now have item-veto authority. He must sign or veto the entire appropriations act. The item veto sometimes is referred to as a line-item veto.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/item_veto.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

Supporters of a line-item veto hold that it would allow the president to act as a limit on government spending, and prevent the common practice of using appropriations bills to hold unpopular ammendments that cannot then be voted down without rejecting the entire bill. Opponents claim that it would give the president excessive power, allowing him to deprive departments of funding at will without the approval of congress.

==Pocket Veto==
The Constitution grants the President 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the President has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pocket_veto.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senate Terms]]

Human being

2007-07-13T17:30:55Z

BornAgainBrit: Confidence. We know some things as facts, so why prefix with disclaimers?

'''Human beings''' is a term for a [[homo sapiens|human]] that empasizes the role of a human not merely as a social animal, but a thinking person. Human beings were created in the image of [[God]]<ref>"Male and female He created them." (Genesis 1)</ref>.

The academic study of human beings falls under any of the following fields of study, which collectively are known as the "Social Sciences":
*[[Anthropology]]
*[[Psychology]]
*[[Sociology]]
*[[Economics]]
*[[Political science]]
*[[History]]
*[[Geography]]

==Origins of human behavior==
[[Philosophy]] and [[religion]] have long considered the mystery of the origin of human behavior.

While created in God's image, humanity is essentially [[sin|sinful]], and by embracing [[Jesus Christ]] as a savior can be rescued from this sin. St. Paul wrote, "Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish." (I Corinthians 15:35-44)

[[Moral naturalism]] rejects divine revelation as the source of human behavior, ethics, and morals, holding that they emerged from natural causes. The nature of these natural causes is widely debated, ranging from features inherent in the nervous system of humans to natural pressures that led to emergence of the best course for survival as a society, much as instincts emerge as the best course for survival among animals in the wild.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]]

The immutability of species

2007-07-12T18:27:09Z

BornAgainBrit: Expand.

The idea that each individual [[species]] on the planet was specially created by God and could never fundamentally change.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> The idea that species were immutable by many pre-Darwin biologists. Species immutability is also a common claim among creationists but today some of the largest [[Young Earth Creationist]] groups agree that speciation can and does occur to some extent[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. This limited speciation resolves the practical difficulty of fitting two of every species of animal on the ark - a quite impossible task - by instead allowing for only a much smaller number of species to be preserved, which would then diverge into the diversity seen today.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-12T11:24:37Z

BornAgainBrit: Overboard!

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Human embryos in medical research

2007-07-12T11:20:45Z

BornAgainBrit: Trim. Took out all the parthenogenesis stuff as some of it looks questionable. Rewrote cancer section in more scientific terms. Took out whole 'for/against' thing, as this is already covered elsewhere

'''Embryonic stem cell''' research is the utilization of [[stem cells|stem cells]] from [[embyro]]s which can then be grown in a laboratory culture and produce specialized cells to treat [[disease]]s or used for research purposes. The most common source of such cells is discarded embryos at [[fertility clinic]]s - the process of [[IVF]] typicially produces two or three 'leftover' embryos for each treatment, which are usually dicarded. The use of embryonic stem cells in medicine has met with some controversy, particularly from the [[pro-life]] movement that is concerned about the destruction of embryos that they believe constitute human life.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900158.html</ref>

Adult stem cell research is similar except it does not use destroyed embryos, and instead is based on stem cells that can be taken from adults. These cells are less versatile than those harvested from discarded embryos, but they do not raise the associated [[ethics|ethical]] dilemas.<ref>http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm</ref>

The primary reason for wanting to use embryonic stem cells is that they are capable of producing any type of tissue in the body. Thus, theoretically, embryonic stem cell treatments offer far greater potential than adult cells - while both are capable of repairing some damage, embryonic cells could go so far as to replace entire organs. Conversely though, the greater flexability of embryonic cells also makes them more difficult to control. A major obsticle to their use in humans is a tendency to form tumors. Much research is being carried out to better understand the cellular processes which cause this.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:science]]
[[category:politics]]

Talk:Human embryos in medical research

2007-07-12T10:53:50Z

BornAgainBrit:

Why does Stem cell research only discuss embryonic? Adult stem cell research is where the most progress has been made and it doesn't have the same difficulties with destruction of life. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:22, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:Controversy creates conversation. There are very few objections to adult stem cell research, and so noone can be bothered to take the time to write about it. I suggest renaming the article to 'Embryonic Stem Cell Research' or something similar. - BornAgainBrit

Hell

2007-07-11T13:18:08Z

BornAgainBrit: Hell without the biblical view?

[[Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hell.jpg|right|300px|thumb|''Hell'', painted by [[Hieronymus Bosch]], part of ''[[The Garden of Earthly Delights]]''.]]
In the English translation of the [[Bible]]'s [[Old Testament]], the word '''hell''' normally corresponds to the [[Hebrew]] ''sheol'', which was simply the place of the dead. But in the [[Greek]] [[New Testament]] the word used is either ''Gehenna'' (the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where fires were kept eternally burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench) or ''Hades'', the [[Greek]]s' dark, gloomy underworld. The modern English word appears to derive most directly from "Holle" or "Hela" or "Hel", goddess of the dead in Germanic/[[Norse mythology]]. When the [[Anglo-Saxons]] later embraced [[Christianity]], the existing word in the language was reused in the new Christian concepts.

To Christians, hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the [[sins]] they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. Since all have sinned (Rom 3:23) hell can not be avoided on ones own merits, but through the love gift of Jesus one can know, love, and serve [[God]] and share eternity with Him in [[heaven]].

The Christian and [[Muslim]] religious traditions often emphasize the ''Gehenna'' aspect: Hell is extremely hot and filled with fire and [[brimstone]]. Opinion varies on the question of whether, while hell itself is eternal, experience of it purges away the sins of sufferers to the point of eventual redemption. See [[purgatory]]. A minority of Christians do not believe in an eternal hell as punishment, believing instead that the souls of the wicked are annihilated. This view is referred to as [[Annihilationism]]. There is also a question of whether hell has a literal burning fire, or whether it is separation from God and therefore has the same torment as if there was a burning fire. This view has been supported by writers such as [[J.P. Moreland]].

Although hell is a focus and a concern in Christian theology, the Bible has an even greater focus. In the [[King James Version]] the word hell is mentioned 54 times, but heaven is mentioned 551 times.

The bible describes Hell as a physical place characterised by fire and torment:

Matthew 13:41-42 - ''The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.'''

Matthew 25:41 - ''Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.''

Matthew 25:46 - ''And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.''

Mark 9:43 - ''And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.''

2 Thes 1:7-8 - ''And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.''

Revelation 20:10 - ''And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.''

Revelation 20:14-15 - ''And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.''

[[Category:Religion]]

Cheese

2007-07-11T12:29:18Z

BornAgainBrit: /* Synthetic cheeses */ (Are icky)

[[Image:Cheese.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Blue Stilton, a fine traditional English cheese.]]

'''Cheese''' is a solidified dairy product. Cheese making starts with the solidification of milk proteins, usually by the addition of [[rennet]] (a mixture of [[enzyme]]s) or an edible acid, which produces [[curds]]. For most types of cheese the [[curds]] is separated from the liquid, the [[whey]], and then [[aging|aged]], sometimes for many years. Salt is also often an ingredient in cheese recipes.

==Sources Used to Make Cheese==

Most cheese is made from [[cow]]'s [[milk]], although technically, any large [[mammal]]'s milk can be used. Some common sources of milk for making cheese other than cows include:

*[[Goat]] milk (e.g. Chevre cheese)
*[[Sheep]] milk (e.g. Roquefort)
*[[Yak]] milk.
*[[Buffalo]] milk

==Cheese History==

[[France]] is especially renowned as a cheese producer, and their president [[Charles de Gaulle]] famously said : "How can a country with 300 different kinds of cheese agree on anything?". However, many French cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk and their transport across international borders is therefore forbidden for health reasons owing to potentially toxic bacterium ''listeria''. Physicians recommend that the cheeses should not be coumsed by [[pregnancy|pregnant]] women or young children. Certain French cheeses (such as Epoisses) are so smelly to keep up the urban legend that their carriage is banned even on French [[public transport]].

It is most likely that the invention of cheesemaking was a way of preserving excess milk for leaner times.

==Varieties==

There are literally thousands of varieties of cheese made in the world today. The best selection with more than thousand varieties is offered in the Kaufhaus des Westen, Berlin, Germany [http://www.kadewe-berlin.de/kaese_engl.php]. Some well known varieties are:

===Hard cheeses===
*Cheddar (A hard red or white cheese, originally from the [[England|English]] West country, but also now made worldwide in countries including [[Ireland]], [[Canada]], [[New Zealand]], and [[Scotland]])
*Parmesan ([[Italy|Italian]] very hard cheese.)
*Romano (Another Italian hard cheese)
*Gouda ([[Netherlands|Dutch]] cheese, with a yellow wax rind.)
*Monterey Jack ([[America]]n.)
*Mozzarella (A very soft white cheese from Italy, traditionally made with buffalo's milk.)
*Emmenthal (A [[Switzerland|Swiss]] cheese, characterised by large holes.)
*Cheshire (A hard red or white cheese, more crumbly than Cheddar with a salty taste. Made in Cheshire or North Shropshire. Mrs Appleby's Cheshire has won international renown.)

===Blue cheeses===
*Blue Stilton (English crumbly blue cheese, a non-blue variety also exists.)
*Roquefort (The [[France|French]] king of blue cheeses, made from sheep's milk in a cave.)
*Cheshire Blue (Mild blue cheese with a salty flavour)

===Soft cheeses===
*Feta (Soft and crumbly [[Greece|Greek]] sheep's or mixture of sheep's and goat's milk cheese)
*Brie (a French soft cheese, not particularly smelly.)
*Camembert (a French soft cheese, fairly smelly.)
*Muenster (a French soft cheese)
*Cottage cheese (a very runny soft curd cheese).

===Synthetic cheeses===
*American or processed cheese, a very mild [[ersatz]] cheddar with a smooth texture, often delivered by unusual methods, such as in cans, as strings, or as a spray. Though considered by many connoisseurs to have an unpleasantly chemical or plasticy taste and no significent texture, its very low cost had lead to its use as a 'generic' cheese for snacks, fast-food, burgers, or any meal in which a cheese is used to enhance another element of a meal rather than form a more significent taste.

==Non-cheese cheeses==

Head cheese, known as brawn in the UK and by other names in other parts of the world, is made from meat taken from the head of an animal - pigs, calves and cows are used - that might otherwise remain uneaten for aesthetic reasons. It sometimes includes meat from other normally unappetising areas such as the feet or organs. The meat is chopped or shredded and set in [[gelatine]]. It is usually eaten cold or at room temperature as a luncheon meat. In the southern states of the US this is sometimes also known as sousemeat and pickled in vinegar.

[[Lemon]] cheese is another name for lemon curd in the UK. Fruit cheeses are sometimes made with other citrus fruit.

==Cheese in Culture==

In [[England]], the traditional sport of [[cheese-rolling]] remains locally popular. [http://www.cheese-rolling.co.uk/]

[[James McIntyre]], a [[Canadian]] poet, was fond of writing [[poems]] and [[ode]]s to cheese. This is not because he thought the subject was funny, or ironic. Rather, McIntyre saw cheese production in [[Canada]] as a [[symbol]] of the strong growth in the Canadian [[economy]]. Many people today find his works quite humorous, but McIntyre's "[[Ode on the Mammoth Cheese]]" is considered by most poetry [[scholars]] not only his best work, but his ultimate achievement.

The original family name of comedian [[John Cleese]] was Cheese, but was changed to Cleese by his father. Cleese is famous, of course, for playing the frustrated customer in the Cheese Shop sketch on the ''[[Monty Python|Monty Python's Flying Circus]]'' television show.

Cheese is considered by some as a palliative for various internal diseases.

In the animated series ''Wallace & Gromit'', cheese plays an important role. Not only is Wensleydale cheese their favorite variety but in ''A Grand Day Out'' they visit the moon because it is made of cheese.

[[Category:Dairy products]]

Talk:Mammary glands

2007-07-11T12:08:29Z

BornAgainBrit: Sorry, cant do it.

Oh for crying out loud, this is what makes turns this place into a laughing stock: "In humans, the mammary glands are generally not refered to directly." Is this really necessary. I mean what kind of sex-obsessed weirdo would come up with that. And what does an "indirect reference" amount to.

This is obviously one of those parody articles designed to make CP into a joke. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 13:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Myles here. Well, do you think it has improved now? A two line definition which would be less than a $1 dictionary in the remainder stacks gives you, which spends fully HALF its time on telling you male bats have got 'em. What on Earth would be the point in having this. If the super-holy evangelists here can't bring themselves to face this gopic, then just perhaps the women here might hopefully be able to put togeether a couple of pars in a reasonable and mature way. As it is, the current text is more of a joke than any amount of satire would be. --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 19:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Family friendly is one thing, but are we allowed to say for forbidden word here? Its BREAST everyone... say it... go on... its not *that* unmentionable a term. I will see what I can do... - BornAgainBrit
:::Or not... I tried, I failed, I just cant improve this any more. Cant bring myself to use the word breast either, and if I try to be indirect it just looks rediculously prudish and silly.
:::I did cut out the bit about evolving from sweat glands though... milk from sweat glands? Darwinists have produced some nonsense to support their theory before, but that has to be one of the strangest claims ive heard, but turning sweat (Water/salt/some slight impurities) into such a complicated medium for nutrition as milk... no, I just cant see how anyone could believe that. Also, if half our pages are written by creationists and half by darwinists, we are going to look very contradictory. One or the other has to go, and this wouldn't be conservepedia if we followed darwinian orthodoxy.- BornAgainBrit

Mammary glands

2007-07-11T12:04:13Z

BornAgainBrit: Nope... sorry, im as bad as anyone, I cant work out how to describe human mammary glands without seeming suggestive. Cut a dubious statement out though.

Specialized [[organ]]s in [[mammal]]s that produce [[milk]] to nourish the young.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> Functional glands organs are found only in the females of most mammals including humans, although in some species (such as some bats, some goats) males also are able to lactate using these glands.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Talk:Mammary glands

2007-07-11T11:58:01Z

BornAgainBrit: Prudes.

Category talk:Egg-laying mammals

2007-07-11T11:54:42Z

BornAgainBrit: New page: Small list... why, when monotreme will hold much the same? - bornagainbrit

Small list... why, when [[monotreme]] will hold much the same? - bornagainbrit

Talk:Conservative

2007-07-10T19:56:33Z

BornAgainBrit:

{{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)

Jefferson, Thomas

2007-07-10T19:23:57Z

BornAgainBrit: Redirect to Thomas Jefferson

#REDIRECT [[Thomas Jefferson]]

Thomas Jefferson

2007-07-10T14:02:29Z

BornAgainBrit: Jefferson Bible.

{{President
|image=TCJJ.jpg
|seq=3
|term_start=March 4, 1801
|term_end=March 4, 1809
|party=Democratic-Republican
|vp=Aaron Burr
|vp_dates=1801-1805
|2vp=George Clinton
|2vp_dates=1805-1809
|previous=John Adams
|next=James Madison
|office2=vice
|seq2=2
|term_start2=March 4, 1797
|term_end2=March 4, 1801
|party2=Democratic-Republican
|pres2=John Adams
|pres_dates2=
|previous2=John Adams
|next2=Aaron Burr
|birth_date=April 13, 1743
|birth_place=Shadwell, Virginia
|death_date=July 4, 1826
|death_place=Charlottesville, Virginia
|spouse=Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson
|religion=Deist{{cn}}
}}

'''Thomas Jefferson''' (1743-1826) was the third [[President of the United States of America]] and often credited as the author of the [[Declaration of Independence]], though key portions of that document were simply taken from the [[Virginia Declaration of Rights]].
{{fact}}
Jefferson was a prominent architect, inventor and scientist. His presidency had significant failures, but is best known for doubling the area of the United States with the controversial [[Louisiana Purchase]] from France.

Many liberal textbooks and online resources claim that Jefferson was a [[deist]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> but Jefferson's own description of his views show more complexity.

In one of his writings now inscribed on the [[Jefferson Memorial]] in Washington, D.C., Jefferson said:

<blockquote>God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.</blockquote>

Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address implied that, unlike [[deists]], he believed in divine intervention: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old."

In an 1803 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson declared that "I am a Christian," though his view of [[Christianity]] was different from most:
<blockquote>I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of [the Christian religion]. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.<ref>Jefferson, Thomas, April 21, 1803: Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush[http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html]</ref></blockquote>

However, dispite Jefferson's self-declared Christianity, many of his views would be considered incorrect or even heretical by most Christians. Most notably, he attempted to create the [[Jefferson Bible]] - an edited New Testament intended to retain Christ's moral and practical teaching, while disposing of supernatural or inconvenient elements.

Jefferson certinly believed Jesus to be a great teacher of morality, and believed the universe to be created by a God. Less clear is his views on subjects such as the divinity of christ, the resurrection, sin and salvation. The Jefferson Bible suggests he rejects these ideas entirely, but is not definitative.

Jefferson, along with [[James Madison]], was a member of the [[Democratic-Republican Party]], an early political group that was opposed by the [[Federalist Party]].

Jefferson died on July 4th, [[Independence Day]], in 1826. It was the same day as the death of [[John Adams]]. While rivals during their time in government, they started writing personal letters to each other in later life.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jefferson, Thomas}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Thomas Jefferson

2007-07-10T13:51:37Z

BornAgainBrit: Jefferson Bible

I hate to point out the hipocrasy here that while Wikipedia seems to be okay to referance for facts that are supported by the status qou here. The same wikipedia is refuted as being a referance for those who are supporting a viewpoint not in popular opinion here. Either Wikipedia must be allowed to be cited or it cannot. Example Referance 1 of this page is allowed but referance 3 is not.

Also for the record I am not attacking Christianity, but I am attacking the use of it to further an agenda claiming to be christian when it is the furthest from the truth. The last true Christian Died on a cross ~2007 years ago and the lesson he taught have been twisted into a mockery of what he ment them to be.

I would also like to point out that there is no mention of "Separation of Church and State" in this article. A term Jefferson created. [[User:BlackholeStorm]]

== Christian? ==

Jefferson was a Christian? Ive brought this up in debate a few times, and I would consider him a christian only by the widest of definitions. He is responsible for the writing of the [[Jefferson Bible]], about as heretical a work as it would be possible to create. Based on that act, I would conclude he was a historical parallel to the 'casual christian' of today - someone who took some moral lessons from the bible when it suited him, but explicly '''rejected''' all supernatural claims Christ made - even to the extent of writing an edited bible which removed them all! He rejected God, the resurrection, salvation, sin, heaven, hell... how can anyone consider him a Christian? Believing that Jesus was 'a good man' just isn't enough to qualify. He himself admitted to being a deist, who believed Jesus to be a good teacher but in no way a god. He was a great politician, but I am unfortunatly sure this mistake ensured he went to Hell.- BornAgainBrit

Harry Potter

2007-07-10T12:44:42Z

BornAgainBrit: New paragraph.

[[Image:67486ruy.jpg|right|thumb|Cover of '''Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'''.]]
'''Harry Potter''' is the hero of a series of novels by [[J. K. Rowling]], about an orphan boy who finds that his parents were [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]]s. Harry then goes to Hogwarts, a boarding school for young wizards, and has many adventures there learning magic and using it to fight the forces of the [[Voldemort|wizard]] who killed his parents when he was an infant. Along the way, Harry learns about life and death and grapples with questions of morality and friendship. As of 2007, the series is projected to consist of seven novels, of which six have been published, with the seventh to be released in July of 2007.

The books have been fabulously successful, selling 300 million copies, and Forbes estimates that they have made Rowling the first billion-dollar author in history.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html J. K. Rowling And The Billion-Dollar Empire].</ref> To date, four of them have been made into movies, the fifth to be released July 2007, and the sixth to begin filming September 2007.

The Harry Potter series of books are sizeable volumes. The 870 pages of ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,'' even though printed in large type, contain 255,000 words—about twice as long as ''A Tale of Two Cities.'' The "Lexile" measure of reading level puts the series between 880L and 950L,<ref>For comparison: Charlotte's Web 680L, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland 890L, Moby Dick 1200L</ref> comparable to sixth-grade texts<ref>[http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=fa&tabindex=4&tabid=22 The Lexile framework for reading].</ref> On July 20, 2005 [[Tony Blair]], the [[Prime Minister]] of England, joined the [[House of Commons]] in lauding J.K. Rowling for her contribution to the education of British young minds.

==Criticisms==

The English "public" schools Hogwarts resembles are ostensibly Anglican institutions; but at Hogwarts, chapel is conspicuously absent. A failure to mention [[Christianity]], other than a celebration of [[Christmas]], combined with the presence of wizardry, have led some to wonder whether Rowling is substituting [[paganism]] for Christianity. The books have also been accused of promoting witchcraft or [[wicca]].<ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/potter.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1735623.stm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm]</ref>

In 2002, a Presbyterian publishing house published ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' in which "glimmers of the Gospel" are illustrated by reference to the Potter books. The author acknowledges she was "replicating the techniques used by anti-Potter critics to look for exactly the opposite of what they were looking for." She notes that Rowling, although "reserved" in announcing her religious beliefs, "openly declares her faith in God and attends the Church of Scotland."<ref>Neal, Connie (2002), ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker,'' Westminster John Knox Press (an imprint of Presbyterian Publishing, Inc.), ISBN 0-664-22601-9; "replicating the techniques of anti-Potter critics," p. xiv; Rowling's beliefs, p. xii.</ref>

In 2003, a [[Vatican]] representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world." <ref>Sink, Mindy (2003), "The Split Verdict on Harry Potter,"
''The New York Times,'' March 8, 2003, p. B6; representative quoted is Rev. Don Peter Fleetwood, who "helped draft a Vatican document on New Age phenomena."</ref>

Some expect children's' literature to present characters that are idealized role models, and to teach simple, explicit life lessons. However, the world of Harry Potter is one in which adult authority figures are complex, imperfect, and occasionally ludicrous (as they are in ''Alice in Wonderland.''). Some teachers in the series are boring, or outright incompetent, while others are supportive and protective (like [[Dumbledore]] and [[Lupin]]).

Harry is what can be called a "good" person, following the tradition of a [[tragic hero]] from [[Greek Tragedy]]. As a whole, students at Hogwarts study hard, but are not above cheating, goofing off, or skipping class.

===Notable Ban Attempts===
----

On the week of April 10, 2006, Georgia mother of four, Laura Mallory, filed an appeal with the Gwinnett Board of Education in an attempt to remove the Harry Potter series from Gwinnett schools. Ms. Mallory (Who, by her own admission, has never read any of the Harry Potter books) stated on the appeal form that she wished the books removed due to their "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this.".<ref>[http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=14074&change_well_id=2]</ref> The local board of education denied the request, as they felt the banning of Harry Potter would necessitate the banning of all books with reference to witches, including plays like [[Macbeth]] and even stories like [[Cinderella]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/ Georgia mom seeks ban on Harry Potter]</ref> Ms. Mallory has since appealed the ruling twice to no avail.<ref>[http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5022462&nav=8fap]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16204853/from/]</ref><ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/011807dnentpotterprotest.a89cec.html]</ref>

Similar concerns have been voiced Christian cartoonist [[Jack Chick]], pastor and author [[Dave Hunt]], the British group [[Christian Voice]] and various others. None of these have resulted in any form of legal action.

==Series titles==
*Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (original title as published in England and all other English speaking countries other than U.S.A: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone)
*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
*Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (announced)

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Fantasy]]

Prayer

2007-07-10T12:25:42Z

BornAgainBrit: Preemptive countering of anticipated anti-christian arguement. Really badly written, sorry, but im sure a few edits by others will clear it up.

In [[Chistianity]] and many other religions, prayer is the process of directly connecting to God, usually for the purpose of deliberate communication.

Through prayer our thoughts and hopes are heard and understood. Oftentimes, prayer will result in feeling God's presence or feeling like one is touched by God. This feeling of a connection is cited by many theists as proof of God's existance. It is through prayer that man can understand God's will in his life through a personal connection. Prayer is common throughout the [[Bible]] in both the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament|New]].

The capability of prayer are often misinterpreted as proof of the non-existance of God. In a common argument, a Christian may be asked to pray for something which cannot possibly occur through natural means, or which is so unlikely that the possibility of it occuring without supernatural intervention may be discounted - asking God to ensure that a fair coin lands on heads fourty times in succession, for example, which has a statistical probability of approximately one in a trillion. When the prayer has no apparent effect - the coin lands on heads after a few flips - the argument is made that God as described in the bible cannot exist, as this God claims to be able and willing to grant prayer requests.

A similar argument is based upon scientific study of the effects or prayer, particually in medical contexts - asking why patients who recieve much prayer fair no better than those who recieve no prayer at all, or questioning why Christians would pay for health insurance when God has demonstrated in the bible the capability for supernatural healing.

Both of these arguments are fallicious, resting on the false assumption that God will grant all prayers. This is not true: While God hears all prayers, it is His judgement that decides which are worthy of His intervention. There is no reason God needs to provide additional proof of his existance by flipping coins or holding 'publicity stunts' when His existance is already manifest in His creation. Similarily, there is no reason for God to aid or hinder in matters of medical survival - the patients' eventual destination is determined only by themselves, and their time of arrival there holds little importance. God grants the prayers of those who pray in faith and true need.

[[Category: Religion]]

Talk:Origin of Life

2007-07-10T12:11:52Z

BornAgainBrit:

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm

== Grammatical error ==

There are numerous instances in this article where "creationist" (singular) should be "creationists" (plural).

== Bootstrap problem ==

Why no mention thereof?

Germ theory of disease

2007-07-10T12:08:03Z

BornAgainBrit: Just inserted a link to another page. Also... 'smell'.. could this be a corruption of 'miasma'?

The '''Germ theory of disease''', developed in the 1860s and 1870s by [[Louis Pasteur]], states that [[microorganisms|tiny "living beings"]] are the cause of infectious diseases. [http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2007.htm#sta20005.htm#microorganism]
The theory was developed to explain puerperal fever, or [[Child bed fever]]. [http://www.harvestfields.ca/HerbBooks/01/12bk/01/170.htm] Beginning sometime in the nineteenth century, science began replacing the millenial old practice of midwifery, and physicians began delivering babies in hospitals. Puerperal fever was transmitted from patient to patient on the hands of the attending physician, and both women and the new born frequently died within days. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, using the controversial theory of microscopic organisms tinier than the eye could see was the first to insist that all practitioners must wash their hands before having contact with women in childbed, and Joseph Lister, who first introduced antisepsis into surgical practice. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3686/is_200304/ai_n9213545]

He showed that the theory of [[spontaneous generation]] was false, by placing one piece of meat under a glass jar and another in an open dish. He observed flies landing on the exposed meat, but of course flies could not penetrate the glass jar. Flies did not come out of nothing, but from eggs deposited by flies which he could easily see landing on the exposed meat.

The theory that bacteria (and later, viruses) cause disease eventually became a corner of modern medicine, but first it faced an uphill battle.
The idea that infection could be spread by invisible substances was oppsed vigorously by doctors in Vienna when proposed by [[Ignaz Semmelweis]]. He reduced the incidence of mothers dying after childbirth from infection from 20% to near-zero, but other doctors resisted his efforts and got him fired.

Only after the germ theory was championed by Pasteur (see [[pasteurization]]) and Lister (namesake of [[Listerine]] mouthwash) did [[antiseptic medicine]] become popular.

Prior to germ theory, it was widely believed that disease was spread by smell.{{cn}} As disease-spreading conditions - rotting meat, open sewage, and such things - was often highly odorous, the smell and disease were associated. Disease was also often attributed to [[demon|demonic]] [[posession]] - although demonic posession must be possible as it it mentioned in Scripture<ref>Mark 5:1-13</ref>, it is a rare occurance, and almost all disease attributed to it was a result of other causes.

The [[Christian Scientist]] sect, founded by [[Mary Baker Eddy]], believes that the Germ Theory of Disease is not true and that it is contradicted by Scripture.<ref>http://www.spirituality.com/tte/article_display.jhtml?ElementId=/repositories/shcomarticle/Feb2006/1140106869.xml</ref> God created all life, and so all life should reflect His glory and inherent goodness - God could not have created pathogenic organisms, as these are inherently contary to His nature.

==Reference==

<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2007.htm#sta20005.htm#microorganism Lecture notes] for a course at Ohio State University

[[Category:Microbiology]]
[[Category:Virology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Lindisfarne

2007-07-09T14:15:27Z

BornAgainBrit: very minor edit. chatter.

I know this place... I visited it once! Stayed to look around the castle, and... tide came in. I got stuck. I remember the drive back to the cottage I was staying at, at about one in the morning. - BornAgainBrit, contributing something completly irrelivent because smalltalk is always worthwhile.

Talk:Primus

2007-07-09T13:52:37Z

BornAgainBrit: New page: I have to wonder... what is conservapedia's goal? Because I can see that its going to turn into a pop-culture reference like wikipedia without some standards for what ''cant'' be included ...

I have to wonder... what is conservapedia's goal? Because I can see that its going to turn into a pop-culture reference like wikipedia without some standards for what ''cant'' be included - unless the admins decide they want every singer, musician, single, album, TV program, movie and series to have a page listing everything from cast to irrelivent trivia. - BornAgainBrit

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.

2007-07-09T13:43:19Z

BornAgainBrit: Legal detail. The decision did not 'uphold the constitutionality.' Rather, it concluded that there was insufficient grounds to challenge the constitutionality. Actual constituionality not addressed.

''Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.'', 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8512 (2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] was a challenge to the constitutionality of the [[Bush Administration]]'s funding of faith-based programs. President [[George W. Bush]]'s two appointees, Justice [[Sam Alito]] (who wrote the opinion) and Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], constituted the 5-4 margin of decision. The decision did not rule on the constitutionality of federal funding for faith-based programs, instead dismissing the case on the grounds that the Freedom from Religion foundation had insufficient grounds on which to challenge the programs as none of its members were directly affected.

Faith-based programs were first proposed in 2001, and now $2.1 billion a year flows to religious groups to provide community services such as teaching children, training released prisoners and rehabilitating drug addicts. This is about 11% of the $19.7 billion awarded to all community groups by the federal government. Religion cannot be part of the federally supported programs, but groups receiving the money are religious and some of these groups say grace before eating a federally funded meal.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-09-faith-based_x.htm</ref>

“Government can't fund preaching or proselytizing, but it can fund the good social work being done by religious organizations,” observed Jim Towey, who serves as the director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., which describes itself as the largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America, sued to stop Bush’s faith-based program. The group based its legal standing on the mere fact that some of its members pay federal taxes. Such “taxpayer standing” has been used in the past to allow almost anyone to invoke the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to interfere with a governmental accommodation of religion.

The district court dismissed this lawsuit, finding the legal standing to be insufficient. After all, this group was not directly harmed by these programs, which is ordinarily the requirement for legal standing in a lawsuit. Merely paying federal taxes should not entitle anyone to sue under the Establishment Clause to challenge any program.

Justice Alito held for the Court that future challenges under the Establishment Clause will be allowed only if brought against a specific congressional expenditure, rather than an expenditure of discretionary funds by the Executive Branch. Justices Scalia and Thomas would have gone further and eliminated taxpayer standing for challenges to congressional expenditures also.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]

Fall of man

2007-06-23T21:09:35Z

BornAgainBrit: Elaborating.

The '''Fall of man''' is the Judeo-Christian theological concept that mankind and the universe existed in a perfect and ideal state prior to a 'fall' triggered by the actions of [[Eve]]. In this state, death and suffering did not exist - Adam and Eve were, for practical purposes, immortal - as were all animals. Predation did not occur - animals now carniverous existed on a diet of plants.

The one flaw of this perfect world was [[Satan]], who was able to trick Eve into consuming an apple she had been forbidden by God from eating. The effect of this was immediately to introduce [[Sin]] into the universe. No longer perfect, but tainted by sin, the perfect universe rapidly decayed with the introduction of death, predation, disease, pain, and all other consequences of sin.

Young-earth [[creationists]] have determined the fall to account for various apparent contradictions with scientific dateing mechanisms which assume an approximately uniform rate of change. Genetic dateing, for example, would vastly exagerate time spans prior to the Fall as in the perfect sinless state genetic mutation would be minimal.

The presence of sin caused also a gradual decline in human lifespans (Accounting for the extremally long lifespans of early biblical figures such as [[Noah]]) and moral turpitude, necessitating the advent of a [[Savior]]. The accumulation of sin-induced [[entropy]] gradually reduced lifespans and morals. Given sufficient time, this accumulation will become so great as to require the reconstruction of the earth, with the second coming of [[Christ]].

Biological and social [[evolution]] stands in stark opposition to this concept by proposing that men emerged from more primitive species and moved from darkness to civilization, enlightenment, and ever-increasing affluence and lifespans.

Divorce

2007-06-03T19:48:21Z

BornAgainBrit:

'''Divorce''' is the ''[[legal]]'' dissolution of a marriage [[contract]]. Marriage sometimes has a legal and a religious component. Divorce ends the legal contract. Some religions require the married partners to have a ''religious'' divorce if the individuals wish to continue their religious practice. For instance, practicing [[Jews]] must get both a legal divorce, to satisfy secular authorities, and a ''get'', or religious divorce, to satisfy religious practice.

== Biblical View ==

Many believe that the Bible indicates that divorce is a [[sin]] in the eyes of God, and can lead to drastic consequences for those involved. Indeed, God says "''I hate divorce.''" (Malachi 2:16 NIV version)

Many Christians believe that God's views on divorce are most clearly articulated in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9:

''"32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"'' (Matthew 5: 32) and, ''"9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"'' (Matthew 19: 9)

It should be noted that the corresponding passages in Mark and Luke lack the reference to fornication:

''Mark 10:11-12 (KJV): And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.''

''Luke 16:18 (KJV): Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.''

Does two beat one or is Matthew, as an eyewitness, inserting information that the others had lost? There is no one answer.

Some believe that divorce therefore equates to adultery, and incurs the consequences of such.

The further consequences of adultery are played out more radically in
Deuteronomy 23:2, when it is stated:

''"2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."'' (Deuteronomy 23:2)

As this is an Old Testament decree (unlike the previously-mentioned Matthew), it may no longer apply Post-Christ when the emphasis of salvation shifts from countries and family lines to individuals.

Many religions adopt the more liberal view towards divorce that advocates its free practice. Most [[Protestant]] denominations have no prohibition on divorce. [[Catholics]] do not admit divorce. [[Catholic Church|The Catholic Church]] has a process of [[annulment]] based on the non-fulfillment of any of the religious marriage requirements, such as individual freedom or previous unmarried state, among others. Technically, it is not a divorce but a declaration of non-valid marriage. In the 2004 Presidential election season many devout Catholics were scandalized by Senator [[John Kerry]], now married to his second wife, taking [[Communion|Holy Communion]] without having obtained an annulment.

== Divorce in Christian Denominations ==
The attitude to divorce varies between Christian churches. Although no major church fully prohibits divorce, some make obtaining one more difficult than others.

The Roman Catholic Church prohibits divorce in princible, but in practice will make an exception in every case - often declaring a marriage anulled rather than divorced, a legal distinction.

Most [[Protestant]] churches permit divorce, but encourage marriage conciling services or pastoral discussion first to save a marriage, saving divorce as a last resort. Often, the local pastor has exclusive authority over the marital business of his church, with only minimal policymaking from above.

== Secular view ==
Divorce is the dissolution of a contract and laws vary from state to state. Under the common unilateral divorce laws (also known as no-fault divorce), either party can demand and get a divorce at any time and for any reason.<ref>Divorce courts do consider all sorts of allegations of fault when children are involved.</ref>

== Divorce Rate ==
The United States has a divorce rate of 3.6 per 1,000 as of 2005<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf</ref>. This results in a 41% failure rate for first marriages.<ref>http://www.divorcerate.org/</ref>

== Covenant Marriage ==
In order to help solve the social problems created by inordinately high divorce rates, some states have begun passing laws enabling [[covenant marriage|covenant marriages]]. A covenant marriage in some cases is harder to obtain than a default lawful marriage license and also is more difficult to break (the common exceptions being violence, abandonment or adultery). <ref>http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant.htm</ref>

= References =
<references/>
[[category:religion]][[category:culture]]

The Descent of Man

2007-06-03T19:29:18Z

BornAgainBrit:

Charles Darwin wrote '''Descent of Man''' in 1871, a work that chronicled his theory of evolution.

A quote from the work reads:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate the savage races throughout the world ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
</blockquote>

Some believe the [[Theory of Evolution|evolutionary ideas]] presented by Darwin have contributed to or justified racism<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>.

In ''The Descent of Man'', Darwin proposes that his theory of evolution proposed in ''On the Origin of Species'' applies to humans, and considers the implications of this for science and society. He advocates the improvement of the human genetic population by [[eugenics]], particually the extermination of the 'inferior' races. Darwin did not propose active extermination: He predicted that this would occur given sufficient time with or without deliberate attempt, as a consequence of natural selection.

Today anthropologists discount any true distinguishing characteristics between different races of humans. It has been noted that many people were racist in Darwin's sociological background, and that was not necessarily a defining feature that was unique to Darwin himself.

== References ==
<references />

[[category:book]]

Talk:Flat Earth

2007-06-02T16:40:04Z

BornAgainBrit:

Wait.... now you're insisting that the Bible _isn't_ to be taken literally at all times?
Who are you, and what have you done with Rschlafly? And do you need any help disposing of the evidence? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:While the bible is literally true the passages which seem to refer to a "flat earth" have generally be the subject of "[[quote mining]]" and taken out of context.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Man, those evolutionists seriously shouldn't be trusted. *putting it on watch for potential article improvement drive later next week (if it stays this way for a few days)* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dunno about that. Satan taking Jesus up where he can see ALL the countries of the world seems pretty straightforward to me. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I recall a story that prior to the explorations, there was an official church position on this matter: That the earth was round, and its size known approximately, but that the other side could be nothing but water. This position was based in part upon that 'all nations' verse, but mostly on something in revelation which says that ''all'' men will see Christ on ths Second Coming. Clearly, that couldn't happen if there were people on the wrong side of the earth (This problem since solved by the invention of television). Its just a rumor though, I dont know if there is any fact at all hidden in it. - BornAgainBrit
:::The article would certainly benefit from being structured in a more Christian format Sid. I trust that you will sincerely try to improve it in this manner. --[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yeah, we need equal treatment for the [[Scientific Geo-terrapinism]] theory and the so-called "Round Earth Theory" that the Secular Humanists are trying to foist upon us and shout down any dissenters about. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrapinism is an ''excellent'' idea. I'm surprised it doesn't have an article yet. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't imagine why we should want a frivolous article on something like "Terrapinism". Perhaps a mention under "discworld" might be appropriate, but a full article would be nothing other than a grotesque parody of sincerely held Christian beliefs. I have doubts about whether some contributors are taking this issue with the necessary seriousness.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 03:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Bill. People are parroting skeptical arguments, which do have good answers from Christian apologists, just to make Christians look stupid. Just look at which articles some of these people are editing and what they're saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the door was pretty much opened when the [[Loch Ness Monster]] was cited as a possible proof that dinosaurs may still exist today. Conservative opened the door, we just walked through it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm an old earth creationist. Can you see me banging my head against my keyboard? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought I heard something but I figured it was a tree banging against my window. Storm outside. Wow, OECs are really kinda caught in the middle on this site. How do you handle it? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:My support of the site's goals and reverting vandalism allows for some cognitive dissonance. I cringe at a lot of the stuff here, like the Kangaroo, Unicorn, and Nessie. I tend to avoid science-based articles, as I admittedly do not have a strong science background, and I came here more to write about history. Truth be told, I haven't completely made up my mind between OEC and theistic evolution. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, do yourself a favor and don't read anything about evolution on this site. You'll just give yourself a headache. I'm not even Christian and I still believe in Theistic Evolution. Unless and until science can come up with definitive answers for abiogenesis and what initiated the big bang, "God did it" is a perfectly good reason for me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Myk, you need to let your faith lead you little further. If you can accept that "God did it" is a good explanation for the creation of the universe, why should a global flood cause Him problems?--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 04:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flagrant propaganda==

This article is flagrantly anti-evolutionist: "The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians". 1) Very very few people actually thought the Earth was flat, especially not christians '''OR''' evolutionists. About 30 seconds of background reading will tell you that much. 2)The sources for this information are '''ALL''' from christian websites. 3) Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.

This page is a joke, and I made my edits to it in that light. Perhaps you would care to discuss the reversion RSchlafly. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, glad to discuss it. It is an evolutionist myth that medieval Europeans thought that the Earth was flat. It is disproved in the references provided. Please don't insert disproved myths. Your version has no sources at all, and is certainly not "encyclopedic".
: I never hear anyone except evolutionists talk about the Flat Earth. The evolutionist don't believe that the Earth itself is flat, but they propagate myths about the Flat Earth. Read the references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I've never heard anybody at all talk about Flat Earth theory that doesn't make me right and you wrong the same way your dismissal does not make you right.

::It wasn't even a popular belief. It was brought to light in a fictitious novel based loosely around Columbus's journey and thereafter blown out of all proportion with regards historical significance. The article as it stands does not portray these facts and what is more, it appears to slander evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two quotes from MatteeNeutra:
:::*''Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.''
:::*''The article ... appears to slander evolutionists.''
:::Ever heard, "if the cap fits..."? You accuse YECs of being self-slandering, but seem to overlook that perhaps this is a case where the evolutionists are self-slandering, with the article simply documenting that.
:::*''The sources for this information are '''ALL''' from christian websites''
:::True, but does that automatically make them wrong? Of course not, unless you have an anti-Christian bias. Note that the link I added was to an article written by a "Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara"[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/home.html] Does that count for nothing simply because the article was republished on a Christian web-site?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not saying that just because its from a Christian source its wrong. However, if its exclusive to Christian websites then it does cast a shadow of doubt onto the facts portrayed there. And if it is a fact, then other websites that are not Christian should also be cited. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::So being from Christian sources doesn't make it wrong, just suspect? Why? Because you can't trust scholars if they are Christians? Is that much better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, the Flat Earth story was blown out of all proportion, and it continues to be blown out of all proportion to this day by evolutionists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Do you actually have '''any''' statistics to back that up? If not, then it is slander. Hell, I'm surprised this site hasn't already been sued for its bigoted, hate-filled, slanderous pages! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That was an ''opinion'' of RSchlafly's (and it is my opinion as well), so doesn't need citation. The ''article'' doesn't say that. What the article ''does'' say, is cited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Try asking people on the street whether Columbus discovered that the Earth was round. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The page says that "evolutionists" peddled the lie. Actually the source does not mention evolutionists once. It briefly mentions evolution at the bottom but its not related to the issue. To say evlutionists were the only people to propogate the myth is a lie.

::::::RSchlafly, you criticize Wikipedia for being mob rule, then say that I should go into the street and ask random people whether a historical discovery happened or not. What planet are you from? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

(Big unindent) At Wikipedia, '''every''' discussion I've been a part of since 2001 has used "flat earth" as an example of a belief having so few adherents that it's not even worth mentioning. My own suggestion that maybe some sailors believed it, on the grounds that they were especially uneducated, was met was stern disbelief. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Really? It seems to me that the Flat Earth is usually an example of how Bible believers are unscientific and wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: <grin> My ignorance of that contention stems from my only hanging around with the intellectual elite at Wikipedia. The prejudiced ones avoided me, I guess. I'll look into that aspect next. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Google==

All this chatter! It has taken me only a few minutes to look up the basic facts, using Google.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round by the 3rd century B.C., and so did the Christians in Columbus's time. Only primitive people have ever thought the earth was flat. I'm still digging into the suggestion that "superstitious sailors" may have believed in a flat earth in the 1400s, unlikely as that may seem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I'm surprised it took you even that long to find those facts! The article still has some huge flaws and lies in it that need ironing out though. Especially so, is the lie that evolutionists invented the lie. It simply isn't true! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not 'find' these facts. I only used Google to get the details. I've know about [[Eratosthenes]] since I was a wee lad. My parents used the story to stimulate my love for math and science. I'm keen on the [[history of science]], because it shows how hard it is for people to learn and accept new ideas. Galileo, for example, had a hard time navigating the rocky shoals of church politics and managed to alienate his most powerful supporter, a high-ranking Catholic who later became [[pope]]. [[Dava Sobel]]'s book, ''[[Galileo's Daughter]]'' gives a fascinating account of this, based largely on letters from his daughter [[Maria Celeste]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry, I did not mean to offend your obviously well developed passion for the subject! I was merely pointing out that the facts are not difficult to find and that perhaps people should read up fully on subjects before simply charging in head first! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree with your general idea, and that is part of my attraction to online encyclopedia projects. But to be fair, it requires a sound basic education for a person to learn new things. This relates to the [[race and intelligence]] issue, as well as the [[Dihydrogen monoxide]] 'petition' project.

::::When you know enough, no propaganda can sway you. When you don't know enough, you can be fooled. A good encyclopedia makes it even easier for people to "get a leg up" on the competition, i.e., partisans peddling nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|"Eddie Neutral"]] 13:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Rewriting History==

#Washington Irving (1783-1859), History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1837). Historical fiction that perpetuated the Columbus part of the "Flat Error." Many took this work to be real history, even though it was clearly a novel with just enough historical basis to look authentic to many people.
#John W. Draper (1811-1882), History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Proponent of the "warfare thesis" of science and religion, within which the "Flat Error" grew considerably.
#Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 Volumes of Nonsense. Another major proponent of the "warfare thesis" of science and religion.

The bibliography above was cribbed from The Flat Earth Pre-Lab. [http://www2.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/hp/keas/papers/flat_overhead/flat_prelab.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is all well and good, but nowhere does it say that the theory was put forward by evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you ever heard anyone else recite the story? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Irving, who is the first one to promote the myth, and who I'd imagine is the reason that most people think that people in Columbus's time thought the earth was flat, clearly wasn't an evolutionist. I don't think you can really argue that either Draper or White were more influential in promoting the myth than Irving was. It's true that Irving uses the myth to make the Spanish scholars look bad, but that's probably more anti-Catholic bias. He does point out that Columbus was a deeply religious man, and at the time he wrote the book, there was the definate prejudice in the United States of "See how evil and intolerant the Catholics are and look at all the nasty stuff the Inquisition did to Protestants, scientists, and other people who challenged Catholic religious dogma."--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 15:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I predict it's going to be very hard to find anything on the web, with an Evolution supporter accusing Christian opponents of evolution of being Flat-earthers. Not unless we want to count blogs. NCSE is circumspect:

*Eugenie Scott "presents a continuum with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The strictest creationists are the Flat Earthers.... The International Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members (Schadewald, 1980) and is insignificant in the antievolution movement." [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp]

Could this be verbal hype used more in conversation than in serious discussion? Like saying "Bush is an idiot", which is obviously a figure of speech. He'd have to have at least an IQ of 100 just to become a governor (!), and if he actually earned his graduate degrees possibly as high as 120 or 130. See my definition of [[idiot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is very common for evolutionists to make fun of Christians as Flat Earthers. That E. Scott quote is one example. For another, one of them just inserted such a section into this CP page today! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gravitation&curid=8247&diff=85564&oldid=79802&rcid=88608] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Here are a couple of more examples. "Dr. Gould resorted to the hackneyed argument that if creation is allowed to be taught in public schools, then the flat earth theory should also." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4243news3-13-2000.asp] From S. Weinberg reviewing Dawkins: "A friend at the University of Kansas has formed a Flat Earth Society to demand – in mockery of the demand by Kansas creationists that schools present 'Intelligent Design” as an 'alternative' to evolution – that Kansas public schools teach flat-Earth theory as an 'alternative' to spherical-Earth theory." [http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Here is another: "I recently discovered that some Baylor biology professors were having their students read papers and articles where evolutionists put forth the analogy between the flat earth theory and intelligent design. The idea is that flat earth theory is not scientific--even though Christians once believed it for theological reasons, just like intelligent design is not scientific--even though Christians believe it for theological reasons." [http://doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/2007/01/flat-earth-myth.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think I understand your point. It looks to me as though there was merely a contrast drawn between the two theories to show that neither is scientific. Also, I believe that (in your example) Intelligent Design was going to be taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution (i.e. a non-scientific theory being taught in a science lesson), and the Flat Earth Society was only made to show how ludicrous that idea is. How is that poking fun at Christians? Let's face it, if somebody today walked up to you and tried to convince you the Earth was flat you would laugh at them, regardless of whther they were Christian or of any other faith! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You comments don't make any sense. Drawing a contrast between two theories does not show that neither is scientific. I did not give an example of Intelligent Design being taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution. Nobody tries to convince anyone that the Earth is flat. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I agree that it (MatteeNeutra's post) doesn't make sense. You show them to both be the same (non-scientific) by showing their similarities, not contrasting them. But more to the point, the two are rarely if ever shown to be similar. Rather, they are lumped together as though they are both non-scientific, but with no attempt to actually demonstrate that. And that is the very issue being objected to here. Indeed, your argument itself is based on the idea that ID is not scientific, which of course creationists and ID people don't agree with, so you are basing your argument on your presumptions. Of course I would laugh at someone trying to convince me that the Earth was flat (actually, I probably wouldn't laugh, I would patiently try and show them they were wrong), because that the Earth is round is readily demonstrable, unlike ideas from the past about how things came to be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point I was making is that the continual readiness to say that it is evolutionists who are making fun of Christians is wrong. The term "evolutionist" itself is such a huge umbrella term on this site that it is hard to know exactly what people mean by it. I think a clarification in this article and perhaps elsewhere on this site is in order.

::::Your other point about "creationists and ID people" not agreeing that ID is not a science is fairly irrelevant. If we go by general consensus (which, given that both mine and your countries are Democracy's, seems like a good idea) we can determine that ID is not a scientific theory. I'm not disrespecting ID by saying that! Hell, its a neat theory and if people want to believe it then kudos to them; it just isn't science. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Not agreeing that ID is not a science is not irrelevant at all, when the claim that ID is not science is used as the basis of an argument. You can't expect a conclusion based on a disputed proposition to be accepted. You should start from accepted propositions and build from there. As for being democracies, I see two problems with that. First, what is correct and what is not is not based on majority opinion. Second, at least in your country, ID might even be seen as scientific by the majority (I'm not sure, so I may be wrong on that). ID opponents don't usually quote the majority, but the majority ''of scientists''. Of course using the latter argument is a rejection of the "democracy" argument in favour of an "experts" argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Say I agree with you that ID is not scientific because it is not testable. How does that relate to the Flat Earth? At least the hypothesis that the Earth is flat can be tested. The analogy is just nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It was you who brought up Intelligent Design in the examples you gave, but yes, that discussion is probably one for a debate page! I am merely trying to point out that it is (or was) not so called "evolutionists" who "mostly invented and promoted" Flat Earth theory to slander Christians! I feel that that sentence should be removed or rewritten to more accurately represent what actually happened. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

(big unindent) Actually, I just read the sources and had a brief trawl on the www. It '''was''' supporters of Darwinism who promoted Flat Earth! My bad! Peace out y'all [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was about to point that out, having realised that it apparently hadn't been mentioned on this talk page. I was also going to respond to an earlier point of yours (that I omitted to do earlier) about the term evolutionist. Surely the meaning is obvious and doesn't need spelling out; it is someone who believes evolution to be true. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is the meaning that most people would use. However, on this site it seems to mean "anyone who doesn't believe in God" and has even been used by some users, as a sort of insult, for anyone who doesn't agree with them. (On an unrelated note, what time is it in Australia atm?) [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 06:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which part of Australia? That's like asking what time it is in America. In the eastern states where I am, it is currently 9:11 p.m. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Columbus==
When Columbus presented his theory of sailing around the world, he was laughed out of the room. This was NOT because people thought the world was flat. Most educated people (that includes scholars, kings, clergy and academia) '''knew''' the world was round. In fact, they knew the circumference of the globe. Columbus' tried to mathematically show that China was located at the point where he expected to find make landfall in the West Indies. This was regarded as preposterous by well-educated people because he had vastly underestimated the size of the world.

This is well-documented in a book (who's title I don't remember) as part of a theory that Columbus had a map of the new world. I don't remember the book's name, but it's probably [http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/NewFoundLandBase.html one of these references].

Phoenix

2007-05-21T15:04:55Z

BornAgainBrit:

''For the city in [[Arizona]], see [[Phoenix (city)]].''

== Mythical Background ==
The '''Phoenix''' is a mythical bird, the myth of which was very popular in [[Ancient Egypt]], and which perhaps had its origin even before the proto-dynastic period. Blessed with an extremely long life, at the end of its life, the phoenix would spontaneously combust into a pile of ashes, before rising from the ashes as a new, baby phoenix to begin its life again. The myth of the Phoenix is an example of the powerful theme of [[rebirth]], so popular in mythology, which can be seen (especially in Egyptian [[mythology]]) in the tale of [[Isis]] and [[Osiris]].

Dispite its egyption origin, the phoenix appears in some early christian art as a symbolic representation of Christ much as a [[dragon]] is used as the symbolic representation of [[Satan]].

[[Herodotus]] mentioned the phoenix in his ''History of the World,'' but considered many reports regarding the creature to be incredible.<ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html Herodotus ''History'' II.] Accessed May 3, 2007.</ref>

== Popular Culture ==
[[image:Atlanta_city_seal.png|thumb|left|100px|<center>A phoenix on the seal of [[Atlanta]].</center>]]
The myth of the phoenix is familiar to schoolchildren throughout the world as a pivotal sub-character in the [[Harry Potter]] series, as a companion to [[Albus Dumbledore]].

Also, the phoenix is the symbol on the [[great seal]] of the city of [[Atlanta]]. Captioned with the [[Latin]] phrase, ''"resurgens"'' (being reborn), the phoenix symbolizes Atlanta's transformation from a casualty of the [[Civil War]] to a great American metropolis.

==Notes==
<references/>
[[category:mythology]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-05-21T15:02:03Z

BornAgainBrit:

The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts and the proven health risks of gay sex. "Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof." [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html]

It seeks to remove the stigma of [[sexual perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right'': rather, it seeks to convince the public that it is not ''wrong'' enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize.

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963906/posts| New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37%] Washington Post, August 18, 2003</ref> of people agree homosexuality is immoral, sinful, distasteful, degrading, or less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].{{fact}}

Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children through the use of ''tolerance'' or ''diversity'' programs in schools which encourage homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==

A [[Newsweek]] poll, conducted March, 2007, found that 61% of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military ([[margin of error]], plus or minus 3%).

The same poll found that 50% of those asked favored legal recognition of same-sex unions, either as marriages or [[civil union]]s. 44% felt same-sex couples should have no legal recognition, with 6% unsure.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref>

==History==
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of [[Harry Hay]]'s writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref>Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of [[pedophile]]s. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The [[Human Rights Campaign]] and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html, arguing that Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*A gay rights perspective, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org
*An anti-gay rights perspective, Accuracy in Media, [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ ''Red Roots Of Gay Movement''], Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay]

Roman Catholic Church

2007-05-21T14:57:11Z

BornAgainBrit:

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.

== 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]]

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-05-19T14:02:43Z

BornAgainBrit: New comment

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

House wiring

2007-05-19T13:41:06Z

BornAgainBrit: Europe exists too.

'''House wiring''' refers to the various electrical circuits in stalled in a home to enable the use of electrical appliances. The trained professionals who install and service these systems are called electricians.

== United States ==

It starts with a heavy [[American Wire Gauge|gauge]] [[wire]] "drop" from a nearby [[public utility]] pole (or buried wires in some neighborhoods), which first connects to a [[electric meter|meter]] to measure electrical use for billing purposes. This is in turn connected with heavy wire to a main service panel, where there will first be a main [[circuit breaker]]. The main breaker acts more as a switch than as a circuit protection device, and allows the de-energization of the wiring in the building so it can be worked on safely.

The main service panel contains 1, 2, or 3 metal busses to distribute the power to smaller circuit breakers, and ground and neutral lug bars. The ground bar is wired to a metal rod driven into the ground nearby. The individual circuit breakers then feed smaller wires that run to various places in the building. The breakers are sized to "protect" the gauge of wire used - for instance, in most modern house wiring, the typical circuit uses a 20 amp breaker and is run with 12 gauge wire. These 20 amp circuits will provide power to all the outlets and switched lighting in the house. The user should be careful not to overload these circuits, since a high [[current]] device (such as a hair dryer) could be plugged into each outlet, far exceeding the capacity of the breaker, and tripping it. Usually modern wiring systems distribute the circuits in such a way as to make this less likely.

Some [[appliance]]s have dedicated circuits, often with higher amperage breakers and heavier wire. Typical examples are electric clothes dryers, stoves, private well pumps, and air conditioning. A few appliances, while not needing higher current circuits, also require dedicated breakers, such as dishwashers.

Older systems are still found in use where [[fuse]]s take the place of circuit breakers. These usually do not allow sufficient overall current to provide for the array of modern appliances we now tke for granted, and so are upgraded as soon as the homeowner can afford it.

==Europe==

European countries use a 230V, 50Hz standard for domestic power. The power cable entering a domestic property typicially passes first through a tamper-evident high-current fuse. This serves both as a last-resort isloator, and a means to disconnect power from the consumer unit for maintinance. An earth or ground line comes in along with the power cables in most modern installations - older houses may take this from a water pipe, but this is being phased out. Following the fuse, both live and neutral cables connect to a tamper-evident power meter for billing purposes. The output of this meter is typicially legally defined as the legal demarkation point between utility company and propertyholder ownership and responsibility.

Typicially, the next component will be an isolation switch, allowing the property owner to disconnect power without breaking the tamper-evident seal on the company fuse. Often, this isolator is an RCB which automaticially isolates in the event of a fault. It may be a physically seperate box, or a component within a consumer unit.

The design of the consumer unit is similar to that of a US distribution system, with common terminal blocks for all neutral and ground wires and a single live rail which connects to all breakers. Depending on age and property size, either fuses or a consumer unit containing breakers may be used. This distributes power to each individual circuit. The number and classes of circuits can vary greatly, and typicially include lighting and ring-mains. Newly connected outbuildings should be given their own circuit.

==See Also==

[[Building trades]]

Talk:Scopes Trial

2007-05-11T14:22:43Z

BornAgainBrit:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you cite actual examples of bias or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

there has in fact been a lot of dialouge left out, quote mining if you will. [[User:Albyiscool|Albyiscool]] 12:02, 21 March

:Can you cite actual examples of quote mining or are you making things up?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The transcript conveniently leaves out the parts that appear in favour of Darrow, in an effort to make Bryan seem perfect. He may have been the better in the case, but not to the degree the article makes it seem. For a copy of the transcipt, google "scopes trial transcript." Choose the free one that says excerpts. It pretty much has the entire thing.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gore? ==
It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I deleted it, Asch keeps restoring it :-/ --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, the Gore line is shockingly irrelevant.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It's completely relevant to the aftermath section, it is factual, it is not widely known, and it is undisputed. We report, the reader decides. Do not censor factual material that comply with our rules. This is not Wikipedia, where factual material disliked by liberals is censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Andy, prove that the Scopes trial had any relevance on the 2000 Election. And I do mean prove it. Form your thesis, and explain how, out of everything else that occured in the intervening 75 years, the Scopes Trial was the ''primary reason Gore lost''. Heck, I challenge yo to prove it was even a remote cause. BTW, as my major was PoliSci, I seriously doubt that you can prove the connection. Prove me wrong. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, can you actually show a correlation between Al Gore, evolution and losing the state in 2000? He represented TN in the Congress for close to 16 years. Did something change that you're privy to that validates the sentence being here?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How is Al Gore's loss relevant to the Scopes Trial? They DID both take place in Tennessee and relate to overall Tennessee politics. I could link you to good scholarly articles on Tennessee politics so you could paste ''a full treatment of the entirety of Tennessee politics'' in the "aftermath" discussion, if you want.
:::: I have no problem with your statement about Al Gore, it just doesn't belong here. Practice good editing and put it in the [[Al Gore]] article. And I won't bring up the other problems with this article.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, I wonder how many voters in Tennessee in 2000 said to themselves before pulling the lever, '''"Wow, I have the chance to help elect a Tennessean to the Presidency...if only he wasn't a Godless Evolutionist!"''' Certianly it belongs on the Tennessee page, the Gore page, the 2000 election page but here?

:::::Then again, the [[User:Aschlafly|Boss]] says it stays so it stays. If though, this is the tip o' the iceberg of "might makes right" then there might be porblems larger than this in [[Conservapedia| Conservapedialand.]]

::::::If you think this is the tip of iceberg, then [[theory of evolution|you should go here]].-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Aschlafly created this website, so we should defer to his judgment on whether Al Gore's loss in Tennessee in 2000 AD is relevant to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 AD. It is not our place to question the Creator.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 13:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Irony, I hope. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Are we really going to make a comparison between the "Creator" and a Webmaster? The point of a community-driven site is DEMOCRATIC (of the people; nothing about politics) INPUT, and the people have spoken - several times. Seriously, if the only purpose for this site is to trash other groups, nothing will be accomplished here. Facts are facts, and relevant is relevant - conservative and liberal play no part in that. Ignoring fact does not validate fiction. The Gore/2000 comment plays no part here, and some insecurities are being bared by this insistence to include it in this article. Take it to where it is valid information - there are several articles that fit.

:::::::::Sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me -- no one is disputing that this mentioned fact (Gore losing his home state) is true, but there is a strong general consensus that it is irrelevant to the Scopes Trial. If that is going to be overridden, and the article locked, then I suggest contributors vote with their feet and simply stop contributing. What would be the point? [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Aschlafly, I'm interested in your thoughts on how Al Gore was elected Senator (and later won TN's electoral votes for VP) in the first place if his failure to oppose evolutionary teaching was '''so''' important to TN voters.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 05:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Why was the reference to Gore's 2000 election loss removed? Aschlafly said it's relevent, and I don't think it's a good idea to subvert his authority. The information should be restored.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 03:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Is there a cite==

Is there a citation for the sentence '''"The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."'''?
I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's ''Civic Biology'' text was published in 1914.
:::--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Very good point. The reality is this: Professor Cole and Professor Newman (two potential witnesses the court refused to allow to testify) mentioned Piltdown Man in their affidavits, but in neither case did they show much enthusiasm. Piltdown Man ''is not'' in the textbook. (Note, this is from [http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html#pm], a site devoted to trashing ''Civic Biology''.
::Andy, you need to retract the statement if you wish Conservapedia to be "accurate" (not that this article is very accurate anyway, but...) [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of Trial==

My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.

Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.

:So I would assume your understanding is based on the erroneous conservative spin? [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

::Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]
:::: I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.
::: I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That isn't Darrow "asking for a guilty verdict." He's claiming that the Judge has not allowed the defence to present the arguments they had wanted to use, that absent those arguments only a guilty verdict is possible, and that the only way around the Judge's decisions is appeal to a higher court. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: But there is still no rational reason for giving up a chance at jury nullification, or jury confusion, in favor of one's client. Moreover, Darrow weakened his appeal by asking for a guilty verdict. There may not be another example of a (competent) defense attorney ever asking the jury to find his client guilty. It makes absolutely no sense. It is equivalent to an American football player handing the ball to his opponent. It never, ever happens, and should never happen. Darrow did it, obviously, to avoid taking the stand as he had promised.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have to point out, again, that Darrow didn't dodge his cross-exam. Circuit Attorney General Arthur Thomas Stewart decided to stop Bryan from cross-examing Darrow and got Judge Raulston to throw out Bryan's testimony. [http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3030566.html?page=1&c=y]
::::You can also look at the original NYT article [http://daphne.palomar.edu/pjacoby/scopesguilty.html] where it clearly says that the AG and the judge put a stop to the cross-exam. On the basis of this being noted in two separate locations, including the 1925 NYT story, I'm asking you to remove the statement that Darrow ducked the cross-exam.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually, the site from which the partial transcript comes does describe it as Darrow asking for a guilty verdict, so I'll withdraw that objection, since presumably the author had access to the full transcript. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Darrow did say that he wanted to preserve some evidentiary issue for appeal. I'm not sure what that issue is, because the 2-1 appellate decision doesn't even appear to mention it. (I just skimmed it briefly.) It looked like Darrow was trying to have scientists give expert testimony that the Bible is wrong, even tho they are not really Bible experts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Oh, lookee who it is...anyway...the purpose of asking for a guilty verdict was to open the case up to appeal (where the verdict was oveturned). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

<reduce indent>If you read about halfway down in the [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm appeal], you'll find:

:"The argument is that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals is now established by the preponderance of scientific thought and that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory is a violation of the legislative duty to cherish Science"

Perhaps that's it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Plays are not nominated for Academy Awards. Movies are.

==Well, well, another locked article with a significant bias==

Why wasn't this included?
Q--When was that Flood? 
A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning. 
Q--About 4004 B.C.? 
A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate. 
Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible? 
A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given. 
Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at? 
A--I never made a calculation. 
Q--A calculation from what? 
A--I could not say. 
Q--From the generations of man? 
A--I would not want to say that. 
Q--What do you think? 
A--I do not think about things I don't think about. 
Q--Do you think about things you do think about? 
A--Well, sometimes. 

Or this...
Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve? 
A--Yes. 
Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib? 
A--I do. 
Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife? 
A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her. 
Q--You have never found out? 
A--I have never tried to find 
Q--You have never tried to find? 
A--No. 
Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time? 
A--I cannot say. 
Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration? 
A--Never bothered me. 
Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife. 
A--That is what the Bible says. 
Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right. 

Source: [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm]

== Featured article!? ==

My stars.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Entire transcript ==

I apologize for the length of this, never mind it won't paste correctly. However, i ask the mods to either show the entire transcript, or simply cite a link to the entire transcript, since it is painfully obvious taking select items out of context can mislead readers about the degree of accuracy in the viewpoint presented. The website is [http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion/trial_transcripts.html Scopes Trial Transcript]--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 19:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:That would be a wonderful idea. Let the reader, who is presumed to be reasonably intelligent (or at least smarter than a gerbil) make up his/her own mind. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ann Coulter is not a source ==

Anymore than Al Franken would be an acceptable source. Please pull all material cited to her. She's not an academic. She's a pundit. Like I said, just like Franken, or Jon Stewart. No better as a real source. Thank you.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 01:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:I respect your opinion, but disagree in part. When Ann Coulter is describing history, she is a source. When she is interpreting it, she is not (unless her interpretation is either identified as such in the text of the article, or backed up by the likes of Larson, who won a Pulitzer prize for his ''Summer For the Gods'' book on the Scopes Trial.) Even though I do not agree with you, I am open to reconsidering, especially if others agree with you. Coulter, unlike Larson, is not a respected historian afterall. So far, however, I have not injected any of Coulter's characterizations of the Scopes trial that is not shared by other disinterested parties like Larson. And besides, I think her book is good reading regarding the Scopes Trial, and should be mentioned on a conservative Encyclopedia. If conservapedia does not wish to honor Coulter with citations, perhaps Conservapedia would want her listed in a '''See Also''' section. Or perhaps not. If you remove Coulter as a source (and I am not by any means instructing that you should not), the sentences she is cited on do not require any changing whatsoever. I would agree that any aspect of the trial on which Coulter is the sole source should be identified as such in the article proper, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine. Pending further discussion, or action on your part, I will leave Coulter as a source for the time being. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

*Coulter, a practicing Attorney is more of an academic than Franken, an actor/comedian. She is a proper source as a writer with a well researched book, touching on this topic. Good work HeartOfGold! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, then her ''academic'' works would perhaps be better sources, but ''Godless'' is not that. It is an opinionated diatribe, and nothing more. If we can't cite Court decisions (since they just represent the judge's "opinion," according to Aschlafly, which is crazy hilarious) I fail to see how there's any reason that Coulter's book falls on the right side of the opinion/fact line. Unless it's just a partisan judgment, but I doubt we have yet fallen that far.

HoG, I'm glad she's not that important to the article. I think she'd be a fine "See Also," but her flame-job in Godless is hardly fact.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 08:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:As an Australian, I know next to nothing about Ann Coulter, although I have heard of her in recent times and realise that she is on the conservative side of the fence.
:Personally, I don't like absolutely ruling anybody out as a source; some sources need to be treated with a lot more caution than others, but each case should be considered on its merits. If someone has a ''specific'' issue with using Ann Coulter (i.e. for a specific reference), that should be raised, but to suggest that we should "pull all material cited to her" simply because "[s]she's not an academic" is going overboard.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::She does have an entry here that sums up her not-entirely-unbiased views. - BornAgainBrit

:::Oh, I forgot Americans dont understand the british deliberate understatement: Coulter is to evolution as Phelps is to homosexuality. That about sums her up. - BornAgainBrit

: Is Coulter even needed as a source here? It appears the 2 things that have been attributed to her have also been credited to Larson. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::We have a standard for [[Conservapedia:Sources]]. Would you like to find a better source than Coulter's book? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm confused what that sources link has to do with this, Ed. Also, the items sourced to Coulter's book are sourced to another author in this article. So removing the Coulter source wouldn't violate any policy outlined in that link. I'm simply suggesting that if there is an objection to using Coulter as a source, removing her from the article doesn't change the article's substance. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-05-11T14:16:59Z

BornAgainBrit: wrong tense.

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

In a word, repetative. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-05-11T14:15:01Z

BornAgainBrit: Two new comments added.

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

In a word, repetative. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production was low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

Alfred Kinsey

2007-05-11T13:16:23Z

BornAgainBrit:

Alfred Kinsey was a researcher into human sexuality. He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated. <ref> Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," ''American Journal of Psychiatry'', Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16. </ref>
<ref>Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," ''Family Planning Perspectives'', Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 1991, p. 104. </ref>
<ref>Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?," ''The Washington Post'', April 17, 1993, p. A-1. </ref>
<ref>Felicity Barringer, "Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay," ''The New York Times'', April 15, 1993, p. A- 1. </ref>
<ref>Barbara Vobejda, "Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid," ''Washington Post'', October 7, 1994, p. A-1. </ref>
<ref> Stuart N. Seidman and Ronald O. Rieder, "A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States," ''American Journal of Psychiatry'', Vol. 151, March 1994, p. 339. </ref>
<ref>Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.rsvpamerica.org/chapter%202.pdf ''Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme''] </ref> Dr. Judith Reisman <ref>
[http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html About Dr. Reisman], retreived from The Institute for Media Education 8 May 2007.</ref> who debunked the famed ''Kinsey Report'' stated,
:Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by [[Harry Hay]], the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. <ref>Judith A. Reisman, [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html ''Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution''] </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Occult

2007-05-11T13:10:56Z

BornAgainBrit: Examples added.

An '''Occult''' thing is something that is clandestine, hidden, or secret. The word Occult comes from the Latin ''occultus'', meaning "knowledge of the hidden". Websters defines '''Occult''': To shut off from view or exposure"<ref>http://m-w.com/dictionary/occult</ref>

In modern usage, 'occult' refers to any one of a number of supernatural practices. These may include tarot cards, ouija boards, psychic powers, charms and spells of various forms, some pagan rituals, demonology and divining for resources. This list is not exclusive.

Many of these practices are widely regarded as superstition with no functional basis, and thus ineffective - the divination rituals will provide no insight into the future, the spells have no influence and the demons will not appear. However, the occult does have fervent believers. Futher, the presence of warnings in the bible against various practices that would now be regarded as occult demonstrates there is a level of truth and real danger behind them.

Many Christians see the occult as being profoundly evil, criminal, destructive, life threatening, and/or Satanic. Some Christians take this further, and argue that even fictional depictions of occult practices (fantasy books) or non-supernatural recreations (illusionist performances) may be dangerous.

Concerning occult practices, the Israelites were told:

''“When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire [an ancient occult practice], or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination [detestable] to the LORD…”''<ref>''Deuteronomy 18:9-12a'', KJV</ref>

A '''Wizard''' is a person that possesses occult powers. It is derived from the Middle English word for 'wise.' Wizards are condemned by the [[Bible]]:

''"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people."''<ref>''Leviticus 20:6'', KJV, although this verse refers more properly to "those who would seek special knowledge through the spirits of the dead, whether the dead in general or dead relatives in particular" (NET, Leviticus 19, note 52).</ref>

Also, ''"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."'' is found in Exodus 22:18.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:Abominations]]

House wiring

2007-05-11T12:59:01Z

BornAgainBrit: Its quite different for us euros, so I just clarified this article only describes US standards.

Talk:Pornography

2007-04-23T16:19:15Z

BornAgainBrit: New comment.

==Should there be an article on pornography==
It would, I’ve no doubt, take a lot of patrolling to keep this article site appropriate – it may be a real target for vandalism—but that being said, pornography and how it should be dealt with is one of the major political issues of our times (less now than 20 years ago, admittedly) and if we are going to provide an alternative to Wikipedia this is a very important place to do so (especially as Wikipedia’s page on this subject prominently features an image that is clearly not appropriate for children.). I’d like to see this page unblocked so we can take a stab a writing a good article for it—I’d take a stab at one (I know enough about anti-pornography feminism to start and could look into 1st amendment law) if the sysops think that it is worth trying to write an article appropriate to Conservipedia on this subject.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Drop me a note at my talk page when you're ready to post your first draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Will do! --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==First Draft==
I never say your note, so I just went ahead and wrote my own diatribe. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"the fact is that in the history of erotic literature it is virtually impossible to find any depiction of normal marital relations." That's just a flat out lie and misrepresentation. You seem to be forgetting books like the Kama Sutra, Joy of Sex and videos that are created for couples to use. And the 2nd paragraph is a POV. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not much about marriage in either one - the assumption is that you can go ahead and snuggle whenever and with whomever. I read Alex Comfort's book, a pernicious piece of polymorphous perversion.

::Let's look at Reginod's draft: [[/draft]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I like Reginod's draft save one bit. I think the intro should read "what is widely regarded as an intimate act" and not just "an intimate act." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jrssr5--you forgot the Book of Solomon. And seeing how he had 50 wives, one assumed he knew a bit about marriage. --[[User:PassingThru|PassingThru]] 14:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there is a "Book of Solomon", and the Bible tells us he had seven hundred wives. Perhaps there is something faulty in your research methodology you should examine before making such obviously flawed assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that I am back, I would like to implement the draft I proposed along with the changes that Ed Poor has made (thanks for those, by the way).
The only objection I’ve seen to the draft is that we don’t need an article on pornography at all on this site. I’ve explained above that pornography and how society ought to treat it is one of the more contentious social issues we face today (and it gets tangled up with a number of other ones). I’m open to hearing other concerns before I implement it, but I’m not going to wait to terribly long as anything that needs changing can be fixed once it is in the article as easily as it can be fixed in the draft.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Please add something about the word derivation, like: '''Pornography,''' from the Greek ''porne'' meaning "prostitute,'' ... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I had no idea. Thank you for making that addition.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod - you're welcome to use any of the following that's of any use to you. Shouldn’t an article on pornography at least have its definition correct?

The word "pornography" is about two hundred years old. It originated after the discovery of erotic drawings and sculptures uncovered in the archaeological excavation of the ruins of Pompeii. They included a sculpture of the god Pan having sex with a goat, and drawings of penises that were found painted on the walls of houses. The Victorians collected everything they found offensive and put it in a museum in Naples, which was called The Secret Museum. Only men were allowed in, and they were not allowed to laugh or make jokes. From 1849 to 1860 the Secret Museum was bricked up altogether.[http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-07-38.html] Even today you need a permit and a guide to see the collection.

The word pornography derives from the Greek word ''porn'', meaning prostitution, and ''graphier'', meaning to write, and so it means to write of prostitution. The word was at first used to refer specifically to the Secret Museum, but began to take on a more general meaning by the middle of the 19th century.

Drawings and writings that were erotic were commonplace in earlier times, although they were not called pornography. In Samuel Pepys’ diary he writes about buying a French book called ''Escholle de Filles''. The book is a conversation between Francine and Susanne about sex, the older one telling the younger one all about it. Pepys saw the book in a shop, thought it was lewd and disgusting and did not buy it. However, he went back three weeks later and bought "the idle roguish book, L'escholle de filles; which I have bought in plain binding… because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it." He drank lots of wine, locked himself away, read it then burnt it. He said it was an idle and lewd book but it a good read for a sober man such as himself to read so as to learn about the villainy of the world.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bibles and pornography were the two items most likely to be confiscated by the Soviet Customs on entering the USSR. The common question from border guards/customs officers was always: "Are you carrying Bibles or pornography?"

Women respond to pornography in a way that is more similar to the way men respond than was previously thought. Erotic imagery elicits a faster and stronger electrical response in a woman’s brain than any other kind of image, recent research reported in the journal ''Brain Research'' reveals. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199474,00.html] The researchers expected lower levels of response, since previous research had indicated men that are more aroused by erotic images than women, but found that women’s responses were as strong.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not sure where exactly in the draft you want to place all that information, but go ahead and add it on in. (I’ve added a few more sections to help place the information—I’d put the Museum part in the Modern History section, and the female response information in the effects on individuals section) think the draft is (at the moment) in good enough shape to replace the current article, and since the article is (I just noticed) locked (and for good reason I’ve no doubt) I encourage you to just add to the draft, just like it was a real article, until a sysop can be found to implement it. But, as I’ve said, it is a rough draft—I wouldn’t turn it in to a professor in the state it is currently in, but the wiki process is a collaborative one so I’m more than willing to put my work out there as a base for others to build on.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would gladly do that, but I don't know where the draft is!--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Try here [[Talk:Pornography/draft]] --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pornography and erotica==
Thanks, Reginod & Britinme. Good draft, coming along nicely. I'll just make one quibble:

*Erotica uses sexually charged imagery for artistic purposes,

This isn't actually true. Not unless you think that "art" is entirely separate from politics, etc. Or unless you're trying to say that [[art]] is a category of [[free speech]], which gets into the "P*** Christ" and "D*** Mary" controversies.

In everyday use, [[erotica]] is [[pornography]]. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pornography is something that has degradation as its intent; it does not necessarily even have to contain sexual content. Erotica is material connected with love rather than sex, (though the love depicted is often of a sexual nature). So that although there is a large overlap between erotica and pronography, something can be one and not the other. For example the biblical book [[Song of Solomon]] might be readily categorised as erotica on the basis of its content, but few would call it pornography. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::As a literary genre, pornography is writing that has sexual arousal as its primary objective. Erotica is such material with artistic pretensions. Thus, the descriptive term pornography implies a statement about intentionality and instrumentality without reference to merit, whereas the term erotica is evaluative and laudatory. In Flesh and the Word, John Preston more baldly says, "The only difference is that erotica is the stuff bought by rich people." [http://www.glbtq.com/literature/erotica_pornography.html ]

:::Certainly some pornography with artistic pretensions ''calls itself'' erotica, often to avoid legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material, for example. But this is in no way the same thing as ''being'' erotica. (That's a rather dodgy source you're using there, btw.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m inclined to agree with you that erotica is pornography. I’d say that it makes up a subset of pornography – I’d be hard pressed to find a clear distinction. I think, in common usage, erotica=socially acceptable pornography, and pornography=socially unacceptable pornography.
:Both erotica and pornography are intended to arouse sexual interest. Erotica, perhaps, more subtly than other pornography, but in the end it is about eros – love mingled with sexual desire. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Erotica is pornography for those who have some inteligence. It requires a high level of literacy, and artistic appreciation. It takes skill to make, while plain pornography needs nothing more than a camera. But underneath, it is still pornography. It strives to be respectable, and to some extent suceeeds. But porn is porn, and thats all it will ever be. Just because its a well-written story, or a painting that takes incredible skill to paint, does not turn it magically acceptable. Erotica is a subset of porn, not something completly different. - BornAgainBrit

==Needed fixes==
Since the article is locked can someone make the following changes, marked in '''bold'''?

"Due to a series of liberal decisions beginning with the Warren Court, pornography is aggressive'''ly''' sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement'''{{fact}}'''. It is a $12 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans'''(POV)'''. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.[2]'''maybe include the article that claims this POV'''

Is there really such a large public concern about an alledged connection between pornography and porn? Check the link I provided in the debate about this subject for some statistics on the percentage of people who've ever seen porn or watch it on a regular basis, it might shock you to find that that multi-billion dollar industry only survives because it has many millions of consumers, not just the random perv, but lawyers, doctors, fathers and husbands.

I would also like to see a paragraph about erotica in ancient Rome, Greece, India, Egypt and the stone age, how it's related to human nature and that it does in some cases provide an outlet for potential rapists.
Just to make the article more balanced (and more serious).

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1343839.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-23T16:07:25Z

BornAgainBrit: Added comment under 'modern law'

{{protected|RSchlafly}}
==Discussion==
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? [[User:50something|50something]], 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

: Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

: Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. [[User:50something|50something]]

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. [[User:50something|50something]]

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? [[User:50something|50something]]

: Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
: It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. {{Unsigned|50something}}

:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], and Christian Answers [http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html], both of which agree with me. [[User:50something|50something]]
:Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the ''Washington Post'', and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? [[User:50something|50something]]

:OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::We should continue at [[Talk:Adultery]]. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==My view==
50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
:::''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.''
::Think about that here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122198&oldid=122130] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in ''this'' arrticle. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman ''only'' being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

== Toward avoiding double standards ==

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, ''either one of whom'' is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the [[Old Testament]], adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the [[New Testament]], three things changed:
# Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}.
# Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of ''either the husband or the wife.'' [[Paul]], for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
# [[Divorce]] was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is the full MLA-style reference:
Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." ''The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31.
--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if ''either partner'' is currently married to someone else.
::Besides: who said anything about ''not'' explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term ''adultery'' is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
::As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on [[sin]] and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]. As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

:In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [http://www.familydynamics.net/sexandthebible.htm]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards [http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even ''prior'' to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
:::7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2039;&version=9;] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Modern law==
The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Under criminal law, there is nothing federal banning adultery. I would expect some states still have criminal laws against adultery on the books, but they are very rarely enforced. The consequences under civil law can be much greater though - adultery is grounds for very unpleasant divorce proceedings, and the non-adulterer member will likely be given the bulk of the financial assets, custody of the children, etc. The adulterer will come out worst both due to formal legislation intended to punish adultery, and the natural distrust of the court. I dont know what effect covenant marriage would have on this. - BornAgainBrit.

==Changing times==

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 21:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is not prohibited under the Ten Commandments, or under California law. Yes, many people disapprove, call it adultery, and consider it immoral. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you have the KJV cite on this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Rschlafly, the bible also defines blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication as capital crimes. The article on Capital punishment here makes a distinction between how capital offenses are defined today and how they were defined in Biblical times. Do you feel that article should be corrected so that "crimes" like blasphemy, sabbath breaking, and disobedience to one's parents should simply be listed as crimes warranting execution with no mention of the modern western conception of capital crimes? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? ==

Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&oldid=122016 here])
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your version has only 2 sources, and they don't support your edits. Eg, the Biblical definition is wrong as explained about and by the source in your version. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Historical/Cultural Bias ==

The article at present concentrates too much on adultery as it was defined around the Mediterranean a couple of millennia ago. Social mores have evolved a little bit since then, being codified in various law codes and settled in common usage. For instance, we no longer curse suspected adulteresses with dirty holy water (Numbers 5). The introductory paragraph should address the phenomenon of adultery as it exists within the USA (see the site logo) and move the Greek, Israelite, Hammurabian, etc. adultery rules to a section on history, or sources of adultery traditions if you prefer.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 07:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The article says that adultery isn't punished under the law anymore. Hardly ever, anyway. I don't know about the Hammurabian rules. Yes, the article does have a bias towards the Judeo-Christian traditional definition. Isn't that what the reader expects? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:53, 23 April 2007 (EDT)