https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Castled 2026-09-24T03:42:15Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_hardcore&diff=678628 2009-06-27T00:30:03Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Christian Hardcore''' is a musical genre that fuses [[Christian Rock]] and hardcore punk or metalcore. Their goal is to put music out there that makes people think about [[Jesus]]. [[Christian]] hardcore has gained popularity over the past few years with some bands gaining secular success as well as acceptance in the Christian music scene. Some examples of bands that fit into these catergory would be Demon Hunter , Twelve Gauge Valentine and August Burns Red. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Musical Genres]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_hardcore&diff=676495 2009-06-19T16:40:34Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>Christian Hardcore is a musical genre that fuses Christian Rock and hardcore punk or metalcore. Their goal is to put music out there that makes people think about Jesus. Christian hardcore has gained popularity over the past few years with some bands gaining secular success as well as acceptance in the Christian music scene.</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_hardcore&diff=676494 2009-06-19T16:40:11Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Infobox Music genre<br /> |name=Christian Hardcore<br /> |bgcolor=green<br /> |color=white<br /> |stylistic_origins= [[Hardcore punk]]&lt;br&gt;[[Post-punk]]&lt;br&gt;[[Alternative rock]]&lt;br&gt;[[Noise rock]]&lt;br&gt;[[Experimental rock]]<br /> [[Christian Rock]]&lt;br&gt;[[Christian Punk]]<br /> |instruments= [[Singing|Vocals]], [[electric guitar]], [[bass guitar]], [[Drum kit|drums]]<br /> |cultural_origins=unknown<br /> |popularity=Mid in the Canada and parts of the US<br /> }}Christian Hardcore is a musical genre that fuses Christian Rock and hardcore punk or metalcore. Their goal is to put music out there that makes people think about Jesus. Christian hardcore has gained popularity over the past few years with some bands gaining secular success as well as acceptance in the Christian music scene.</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_hardcore&diff=676093 2009-06-18T17:26:04Z

<p>Castled: Created page with 'Christian Hardcore is a musical genre that fuses Christian Rock and hardcore punk or metalcore. thier goal is to put music out there that makes people think about jesus. Christia...'</p> <hr /> <div>Christian Hardcore is a musical genre that fuses Christian Rock and hardcore punk or metalcore. thier goal is to put music out there that makes people think about jesus. Christian hardcore has gained popularity over the past few years with some bands gaining secular succues as well as acceptance in the christan music scene.</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Flight_of_the_Conchords&diff=661694 2009-05-09T21:25:37Z

<p>Castled: Created page with 'Flight of the conchords are a comedy folk duo from wellington, New Zealand, Thier comedy has sparked international intrest which has lead to an hbo series of the same name. They ...'</p> <hr /> <div>Flight of the conchords are a comedy folk duo from wellington, New Zealand, Thier comedy has sparked international intrest which has lead to an hbo series of the same name. They have also released six albums together they are currently signed to Sub Pop Records. thier songs are often incorpated into their show.</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Christian_Bands&diff=658021 2009-04-29T01:01:09Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Bands]]<br /> <br /> Chasing Victory<br /> Philmore<br /> Audio Adrenaline<br /> The Devil wears Prada<br /> Norma Jean<br /> Last Tuesday</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pierre_Trudeau&diff=654136 2009-04-18T22:41:07Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Trudeau.jpg|250px|right|thumb]]<br /> '''Pierre Elliot Trudeau''' (1919-2000) was the 15th [[Canada|Canadian]] [[prime minister]], and a towering figure in Canadian politics even to this day. He was prime minister of Canada for 15 years in two spells, Apr. 20, 1968 to June 4, 1979, and March 3, 1980 to June 29, 1984. In longevity and importance, he compares to [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], who was prime minister for 21 years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.<br /> <br /> Trudeau, leader of the [[Liberal_Party_of_Canada|Liberal Party]],&lt;ref&gt;In American terms, the party represents a mix of liberal and conservative elements.&lt;/ref&gt; is best known for [[repatriation|repatriating]] the Canadian [[constitution]], for his anti-American foreign policy, his failed efforts to seize Alberta's oil, and his aggressive defeat of terrorism by the War Measures Act during [[Québec]]'s October Crisis in 1970.<br /> ==Career==<br /> Trudeau was born October 18, 1919, the son of a wealthy businessman Charles-Emile Trudeau and Grace Elliot. Bilingual from an early age, he was educated in French-language Jesuit schools, and was a devout Catholic all his life. He attended the University of Montreal, [[Harvard University]], Université de Paris and the London School of Economics. A lawyer primarily interested in public affairs; he was a legal adviser to trade unions, and he was closely involved in the 1949 strike of asbestos miners. <br /> ===Quebec politics===<br /> He gained renown for his work in the field of civil liberties when Quebec was ruled, 1944-1959, by the authoritarian [[Duplessis]] regime. He helped the provincial Liberals win in Quebec in 1960, but then turned away from their growing separatism. Trudeau was always a strong advocate of the Canadian federal system, and repeatedly opposed all efforts to strengthen the provinces at the expense of the national government in Ottawa. He took leftist positions, opposing also opposed nuclear warheads for Canada and campaigned in the 1963 federal election for the New Democrats, a moderate socialist party, against the Liberals. Meanwhile the &quot;[[Quiet Revolution]]&quot; was transforming and modernizing Quebec, bringing democracy, secularism, and a determination that Quebec should be feed from the long-time control of English-speaking businessmen.<br /> <br /> ===Parliament 1965- ===<br /> In 1965, Trudeau along with two colleagues Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, rejoined the national Liberal Party with the stated purpose of reforming it from within. The three quickly became the leading French-Canadians in the national Liberal organization. He was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1965, and repeatedly reelected until his death. Almost immediately the young and charismatic Trudeau was seen as a [[Liberal_Party_of_Canada|Liberal Party]] star and he was made Justice Minister in 1967. Working with Prime Minister [[Lester Pearson]],&lt;ref&gt; See [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&amp;Params=A1ARTA0006175 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'']]&lt;/ref&gt; he became the chief government spokesman against the efforts of Quebec's premier, [[Daniel Johnson]]&lt;ref&gt; See [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&amp;Params=A1ARTA0004149 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'']]&lt;/ref&gt; , to claim special status for the province. Trudeau argued for strong but equal provinces and equal French and English language rights throughout Canada. French separatism was growing, and was incited by French President [[Charles de Gaulle]], who visited Montreal crying out the separatist slogan &quot;Vive le Québec libre&quot; to a crowd in Montréal; Pearson issued an official rebuke and de Gaulle promptly went home, as Trudeau tried to staunch the damage.<br /> <br /> After Pearson retired in late 1967 Trudeau was elected Liberal leader and riding a wave of dubbed &quot;Trudeaumania&quot;, became the Canadian Prime Minister on April 19 1968. Being the first Canadian Prime Minister born in the 20th century he was flamboyant and controversial but was also an intellectual. He immediately called for elections, campaigning for &quot;one united Canada&quot; against the opposition Conservatives, who favored a special accommodation with Quebec. He won a firm majority, with strong representation across Canada.<br /> <br /> ===FLQ===<br /> During his first 4 years in power Trudeau faced several politically volatile situations. The most dramatic was his facing down a home grown terrorist threat of the Front de Liberation du Québec (or the FLQ). For several years [[Quebec_separatist_movement|separatist]] thoughts were rising in the French-speaking province, and the FLQ decided to remove Quebec from Canada by force. In October 1970, Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, for the first and only time in Canadian history. This gave the state broad powers of arrest and detention in a time of crisis. When asked how far and how long he would take the measures, Trudeau famously replied &quot;Just watch me&quot;. Although the FLQ kidnappings would end with the death of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, the FLQ had its back broken by military presence in the province who arrested only 2 dozen or so radicals. The general public overwhelmingly supported the emergency powers and the presence of the military in Quebec. When the crisis was over, Trudeau revoked the powers of the War Measures Act.<br /> ===1974 win===<br /> The Trudeau government was little interested in economic growth, and allowed prosperity give way to stagnation and recession as unemployment and inflation proved intractable. Trudeau was reelected with only a minority government in the 1972 election, in part because of a slowing economy. In the 1974 election Trudeau won a majority, after ridiculing Conservative economic policies, which he had to adopt himself a year later. The economy performed poorly through the late 1970s and Trudeau lost his first general election to the Conservatives in 1979 under the [[Joe Clark]]&lt;ref&gt; See [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&amp;Params=A1ARTA0001651 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' on Clark]&lt;/ref&gt; Clark's minority government tried to privatize Petro Canada, but soon lost a no-confidence vote.<br /> ===Foreign and defense policy===<br /> In foreign policy Trudeau went out of his way to anagonize Americans; he and Nixon hated each other. Canada did not have the power to shape its own foreign policy, but antagonizing the Americans played very well in public opinion. Trudeau decided decision, against internal opposition, to reduce Canadian forces in NATO stationed in Europe. To make up for the military weakness Trudeau tried to strength Canada's national hockey team.&lt;ref&gt; Paul Conlin, &quot;The Cold War and Canadian Nationalism on Ice: Federal Government Involvement in International Hockey during the 1960s&quot;. ''Canadian Journal of History of Sport'' 1994 25(2): 50-68. &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===1980 win===<br /> In 1980 Trudeau won a majority, easily defeating Conservative Joe Clark. In 1982, Quebec voters narrowly rejected a separatist &quot;sovereignty-association&quot; option, but many expected that sooner or later the province would vote for independence from Canada. To head this off, Trudeau engineered changes in the federal constitution, ending the role of the British Parliament in amending the constitution. Trudeau successfully mobilized Canada's major interest groups in support of a [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]--something like the American [[Bill of Rights]]. He persuaded all the to accept the new constitution, except for Quebec, which refused its assent. Frustrated, Trudeau resigned both the premiership and party leadership in June 1984.<br /> ===Social policy===<br /> Pierre Elliot Trudeau social policies had corrupted how canada reacts to social conseratism now mainly becuase everyone saw him as flamyboyent and fun loving in retrospect he was cruel and heartless, he has damaged the canadian social policy for years since he has left with his governing legalzing Abortion and divorce he has ruined or murdered millions of canadians. <br /> <br /> In economic policy his goal was to use the riches of Alberta oil to fund national programs, despite the vehement objections of the Albertans. His National Energy Program caused a bitter dispute over the nationalization of oil companies, to increase Canadian control and generate federal revenues from the energy sector. Petro Canada was founded as a [[Crown Corporation]], although the Canadian government has since sold its stake in the company.<br /> ==Family ==<br /> Trudeau retired from politics on June 30th, 1984 and was succeeded by [[John Turner]]. <br /> <br /> Late in life (1971) he married a young playgirl. They were incompatible, for her image of Trudeau-as-playboy was entirely a media hype; he was actually a workaholic and intellectual with little time for family or fun. After three children were born they separated in 1977 and were finally divorced in 1980. <br /> <br /> Trudeau remained active in law until late in his life and passed away on September 28, 2000 at the age of 80. <br /> ==Reputation==<br /> Liberals in Canada still fondly remember Trudeau as a dashing hero. Conservatives still complain about his poor administrative practices and bad economic policies, as well as his personal arrogance and disregard of the needs of the west. Trudeau's policy of bilingualism in the civil service led to continuing resentment in English-speaking Canada. However, he is admired for standing up to the Quebec separatists and keeping Canada united.<br /> <br /> ==Bibliography==<br /> * [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&amp;Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' online]]<br /> * Trudeau, Pierre Elliott. ''Memoirs'' (1996), primary source<br /> * Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. ''Canada since 1945'' (2d. ed. 1989). college textbook<br /> * Clarkson, Stephen, and Christina McCall. ''Trudeau and Our Times''. (2 vol 1990-1994), standard political biography<br /> * Cohen, Andrew, J. L. Granatstein, eds. ''Trudeau's shadow: the life and legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau''. (1999). <br /> * Couture, Claude, and Vivien Bosley. ''Paddling with the Current: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Etienne Parent, Liberalism, and Nationalism in Canada'' (1998)<br /> * Granatstein, J. L. and Bothwell, Robert. ''Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy.'' (1990). 478 pp.<br /> * Ricci, Nino. ''Extraordinary Canadians: Pierre Elliott Trudeau'' (2009), popular biography <br /> ====references====<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Trudeau, Pierre }}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Canadian Prime Ministers]]<br /> [[Category:Canadian History]]<br /> [[Category:Cold War]]<br /> [[Category:Quebec]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ex-homosexuals&diff=653875 2009-04-18T02:10:43Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>{{homosexuality}}<br /> [[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]<br /> In regards to the question of whether or not [[homosexuality]] is a permanent condition, one of the earliest historical records regarding of the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] is a letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth]]ian [[Christianity|Christian]] church.<br /> <br /> The Apostle Paul wrote the following:<br /> {{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.&quot; - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;font-size: 2em; color: red;&quot;&gt;Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their [[Christianity|Christian]] faith.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bwnd%26quot%3B%26gt%3B[http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewnd%2Ecom%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Easp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D56481 'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexuality - Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp19650%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebpnews%2Enet%2Fbpnews%2Easp%3FID%3D19650%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bref%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecwfa%2Eorg%2Farticles%2F4216%2FCFI%2Fcfreport%2Findex%2Ehtm%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bref name=%26quot%3Bvenus%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Evenusmagazine%2Eorg%2Fcover_story%2Ehtml%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bref%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewitnessfortheworld%2Eorg%2Fblkexgbks%2Ehtml%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B &lt;ref&gt;http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&amp;story=13784&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[Image:6a00cdf3a9bf0ecb8f00cd973c56934cd5-500pi.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|Ex-Homosexual and ex-&quot;gay rights&quot; leader [[Michael Glatze]] speaking to the mother of [[Matthew Shepard]].]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:<br /> {{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html&lt;/ref&gt;}} <br /> <br /> Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals &quot;without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy&quot; through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.&lt;ref&gt;E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, &quot;'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals,&quot; American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980&lt;/ref&gt; The results of this study are not surprising since Christian faith has shown itself to be effective in combating drug addiction. For example, Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:<br /> {{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.&lt;ref&gt;http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.&lt;ref&gt;http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Dr. Neil Whitehead is a research scientist and [[biochemistry|biochemist]] from [[New Zealand]] and his wife Briar Whitehead is a writer.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.narth.com/docs/mygenes.html Book Review: My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation<br /> by Neil and Briar Whitehead]&lt;/ref&gt; Dr. Whitehead coauthored a book with with his wife entitled ''My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation'' which argues that there is no [[gene]]tic determinism in regards to homosexuality (homosexuals are &quot;not born that way&quot;) and that there is abundant documentation that individuals are able to leave homosexuality and become heterosexuals.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their aforementioned book the following regarding [[Homosexuality Research|studies involving homosexuals]] becoming ex-homosexuals:<br /> {{cquote|The sexology literature reports a huge number of examples of change of all degrees from homosexuality to or toward heterosexuality. These studies have been so numerous that West (a gay man) in 1977 took an entire chapter in his classic book, Homosexuality Re-examined, to review them, and commented: “Although some militant homosexuals find such claims improbable and unpalatable, authenticated accounts have been published of apparently exclusive and long-standing homosexuals unexpectedly changing their orientation.”<br /> <br /> West mentions one man who was exclusively homosexual for eight years, then became heterosexual... (notice that there is no reference)<br /> <br /> Another well known author in the field, Hatterer (notice the lack of a first name), who believes in sexual orientation change, said, “I’ve heard of hundreds of ...(notice the dot dot dot) men who went from a homosexual to a heterosexual adjustment on their own.”&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch12.pdf From the book My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead -Chapter 12]&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> The classic biblical commentator [[Matthew Henry]] wrote the following regarding the forgiveness and [[sanctification]] in Christ for those who [[repentance|repent]] of the above sins listed in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians (which includes the sin of homosexuality):<br /> {{cquote|How glorious a change does grace make! It changes the vilest of men into saints and the children of [[God]]. Such were some of you, but you are not what you were. You are washed, you are sanctified, you are [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of [[Jesus Christ|Christ]], and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit of our God]]. Note, The wickedness of men before conversion is no bar to their [[regeneration]] and reconciliation to God. The blood of Christ, and the washing of regeneration, can purge away all guilt and defilement. Here is a rhetorical change of the natural order: You are sanctified, you are justified. Sanctification is mentioned before justification: and yet the name of Christ, by which we are justified, is placed before the Spirit of God, by whom we are sanctified. Our justification is owing to the merit of Christ; our sanctification to the operation of the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]]: but both go together.&lt;ref&gt;http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/1Cr/1Cr006.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> [[Lesbianism|Female homosexuals]] and male homosexuals who leave homosexuality and become ex-homosexuals are often referred to as &quot;ex-gays&quot; and the [[Ex-Gay Movement|ex-gay movement]] became well known in the [[United States]] in the 1970s.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bxtoday%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Echristianitytoday%2Ecom%2Fct%2F2007%2Foctober%2F6%2E48%2Ehtml%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B <br /> ==Ex-Homosexual Quotes==<br /> [[Image:Schnieders.jpg‎|thumb|225px|[[Yvette Cantu Schneider]] and family]]<br /> *Homosexuality is death, and I choose life. - Ex-Homosexual and ex-&quot;gay rights&quot; leader [[Michael Glatze]] &lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bwnd%26quot%3B /&gt;<br /> <br /> *I came out of homosexuality after a powerful encounter with [[Jesus Christ]] and a desire to serve and obey Him. I can say with complete honesty that I NEVER have homosexual desires of any sort - physical or emotional. - Ex-[[Lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Yvette Cantu Schneider]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://americansfortruth.com/news/ex-lesbian-yvette-schneider-testifies-to-complete-and-permanent-change.html Ex-Lesbian Yvette Schneider Testifies to ‘Complete’ and Permanent Change]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Testimony of Charlene Cothran===<br /> In regards to female homosexuals leaving homosexuality, below is the tesimony ex-lesbian [[Charlene Cothran]]:<br /> {{cquote|Over the past 29 years of my life I have been an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues. I’ve organized and participated in countless marches and various lobbying efforts in the fight for equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. I have kept current on the issues and made financial contributions to those organizations doing work about which I was most passionate. <br /> <br /> As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community. <br /> <br /> But now, I must come out of the closet again. I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bvenus%26quot%3B /&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==2006 Survey Finds Men Seek to Become Ex-homosexuals Often Do So to Heal Emotional Pain or For Spiritual Reasons==<br /> A 2006 survey finds men [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071302.html seek to leave homosexual lifestyle to heal emotional pain and for spiritual reasons rather than outside pressure.] In addition, there is [[Homosexuality and Mental Health|other data]] that supports the above 2006 survey findings.<br /> <br /> ==Reparative Therapy==<br /> There have been several studies regarding homosexuals becoming ex-homosexuals. For example, on September 13, 2007 [[Christianity Today]] published an article entitled ''An Older Wiser Ex-Gay Movement'' and below is an excerpt from that article which focuses on [[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]:<br /> {{cquote|Since its beginnings in the 1970s, the ex-gay movement has engaged gay advocates in a battle of testimonies. Transformed ex-gay leaders are the best argument for their movement. Likewise, those who've left the ex-gay movement in despair and disgust are the best counterargument. The debate continued this June, when Exodus International held its 32nd annual conference in Irvine, California, featuring dozens of speakers and seminar leaders who have quit homosexuality. Down the road outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, a news conference featured three former Exodus leaders saying &quot;ex-gay&quot; is a delusion.<br /> <br /> New research may change the terms of debate. Psychologists Stanton Jones of Wheaton College and Mark Yarhouse of [[Regent University]] released today a book detailing their findings from the first three years of an ongoing study. They are investigating participants in 16 different ex-gay programs associated with Exodus, the largest ex-gay ministry group.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bxtoday%26quot%3B /&gt;}}<br /> <br /> The study started out with 98 people with 72 of them being men and 26 of them being women.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp26429%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebpnews%2Enet%2Fbpnews%2Easp%3FID%3D26429%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B Some of the participants quit the study because they believe they had positively changed and didn't see a need to continue while others quit because they decided they didn't want to change from a homosexual to a ex-homosexual. &lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp26429%26quot%3B /&gt; As a result, 73 subjects completed the study.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp26429%26quot%3B /&gt;<br /> <br /> According to the Baptist Press (notice the fair and balanced resource) here are the results: 15 percent of subjects experienced substantial change; &quot;23 percent said their conversion was successful and that [[homosexual attraction]] was either missing or &quot;present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress.&quot; They were labeled &quot;success: chastity.&quot;; 29 percent of subjects experienced modest success; 15 percent of subjects experienced no change and were undecided about what to do next; &quot;4 percent had not changed and had quit the change process, but had not embraced the &quot;gay identity.&quot;; &quot;8 percent had not changed, had quit the process and had embraced the &quot;gay identity.&quot;; and malfunctions in the taping of the interviews accounts for the remaining 5 percent. &lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp26429%26quot%3B /&gt;<br /> <br /> Previously, Dr. [[Robert Spitzer]] published a study in the journal ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' performed using reparative therapy had some subjects experiencing change.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ===Conservative Criticism of Reparative Therapy===<br /> Although many conservatives approve of reparative therapy there are many that do not which will be elaborated on shortly. Conservative Christians believe that a homosexual can choose to become an ex-homosexual, however, the point of difference is whether it was chosen in the first place. The Pew Research Center states the following regarding Americans' views on how homosexuality first originates:<br /> {{cquote|Asked why some people are homosexual, 42% say it is &quot;just the way that some people prefer to live,&quot; compared with 30% who think homosexuality is something people are born with and 14% who believe it develops because of the way people are brought up. The view that homosexuality is innate is more prevalent now than in 1985, when 20% believed that homosexuality is something people are born with.&lt;ref&gt;http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=764&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> Author and ex-lesbian Alma Kramer takes the position that [[Homosexuality and Choice|homosexuality is a sin and sin is a choice]] when she wrote the following:<br /> {{cquote|I made a choice in my life that put me in bondage for 20 years. While it is true that there were certain things in my childhood that happened or didn't happen that influenced my choice, I still made a choice.<br /> <br /> I Corinthians 6:9-11 proves that sin is a choice and that you can change. The New International version says, &quot;Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.&quot; WOW!! I am so glad we can change. I can remember the time when I thought that there was no way out.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.setfree1.com/2.html&lt;/ref&gt;}} <br /> <br /> Dr. [[James Dobson]] and other advocates of reparative therapy do not believe that homosexuality first originates as a result of choice.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20061125_james_dobson_identifies_homosexuality/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Oprah Winfrey and the Claim of &quot;Born Gay&quot;==<br /> Pastor [[Darryl L. Foster]] of [[Atlanta]], [[Georgia]], a former homosexual, states the following regarding Oprah Winfrey and the issue of people supposedly being &quot;[[Homosexuality and Genetics|born homosexuals]]&quot;: <br /> {{cquote|On thing we have learned about homosexuality: it produces acute rudis indigestaque moles in some people. When Heche and Degeneres appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss their newfound relationship, Heche stunned everyone (including Oprah) by stating, &quot;I was not gay before I met her.&quot; You know Oprah; she was just going to be Color Purple honest. &quot;That confuses me,&quot; she quickly confessed. Considering the amount of time and energy gay activists put into pressing &quot;born gay&quot; templates, I'm sure that's not exactly what Oprah was expecting to hear. She was so baffled by the remark that she dedicated her next show to whether or not gays can change....<br /> <br /> Heche has now chosen to be heterosexual and to prove it she got married on last Thursday to Coleman Laffron, a Hollywood cameraman she met while working on a project with then lover Ellen. Was she secretly dreaming of a white, heterosexual Christmas while she was with Ellen? If she was, then can we theorize that many gay people really do want to be straight, but just haven't found the right cameraman/woman yet?&lt;ref&gt;http://ww.witnessministries.homestead.com/cm14.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Ex-Homosexuals and Former Sexual Abuse==<br /> The are studies which suggest that [[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality|homosexuals are sexually abused disproportionately in their childhood compared to heterosexuals]] Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their previously mentioned book:<br /> {{cquote|“Ex-gay” support groups...report that between 50 percent and 60 percent of homosexual men coming for help have been abused sexually. This is confirmed by various researchers.... Ex-gay groups report high levels of male sexual abuse (up to 85 percent) in female homosexuals who come for help.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch3.pdf From the book My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 3]&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> &lt;s&gt;This was later found to be false, as it has been (recently proven) known for quite some time that sexual orientation is genetic and inherent, and homosexuals should be accepted as creations in the image of God just like everyone else. Period.&lt;/s&gt; <br /> <br /> ==Religious Liberty Versus Exgayphobia==<br /> [[Image: PstrDLF1.jpg‎|thumbnail|225px|right|Pastor [[Darryl L. Foster]]]]<br /> Pastor [[Darryl L. Foster]], a former homosexual, states the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals and their duty to speak out:<br /> {{cquote|We can step out and advocate for our beliefs (which is our right as taxpaying citizens) or we can remain silent and hidden, thereby giving credence to a false idea that there are no former homosexuals. The problem with the last option is our spiritual mandate to share our faith and our experience of change to the glory of God. In the church, we have yet to adopt a unified expression which identifies us in a non threatening way.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/xgay.html Understanding Exgay: People or Politics?]&lt;/ref&gt;}} <br /> <br /> The African American ex-homosexual Christian ministry of [[Witness for the World]] states the following in a press release:<br /> {{cquote|Gay activist, Wayne Besen, who suddenly found himself at the epicenter of a new career playing CIA with the lives of formerly gay men and women, says the book which features first person testimonies by former homosexuals urges gays to “go back into the closet.”....<br /> <br /> “Wayne Besen is the nation’s foremost carrier of a debilitating social disease I call exgayphobia,&quot; said Pastor Darryl Foster of Atlanta. “It seems his entire life has been consumed by a fear that Americans will hear the true stories of change by former homosexuals like myself and bring an end to his phobic-laden gravy train.”<br /> <br /> Foster, who wrote the foreword to Closing the Closet heads Powerful Change Ministry Group International, a fellowship of 14 national and international ministries to homosexuals in communities of color who seek change from unwanted homosexuality...&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bwitness%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewitnessfortheworld%2Eorg%2Fpr091004%2Ehtml%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B%7D%7D<br /> <br /> The Witness for the World Press release also states regarding homosexual activists Wayne Besen the following:<br /> {{cquote|“This man is borderline lunatic, he has become so obsessed in his fear,” said Foster. “If the book is about exgays, why would you use anyone else but an exgay? Besen should know better. As a Jew, he should know that the Nazis hated the testimonies of the Jews who escaped from the death camps. Their first hand testimonies of the atrocities heaped upon them were the only links the world had to the truth. Likewise, our stories and experiences as homosexuals are true. We tell them because we want people to know what happened to us, how we escaped and what others can do to get out. It’s absolutely ludicrous for Besen to say that my story is a lie when I am the one who lived it. He seems to have forgotten his own history.”<br /> <br /> Exgayphobic homosexuals like Besen fear that the message of exgays, when it finally reaches the average American will make sense and people will support the choice for change for homosexuals. What that means says Foster is that the grinding money machine mental health professionals have been making off victimized gays for decades will come to a screeching halt. Besen is simply a cog in that well oiled wheel. For such professionals who give big money to homosexual rights organizations in exchange for their &quot;professional&quot; opinions about homosexuals, keeping exgays silent and hidden has become an obsession.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bwitness%26quot%3B /&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Ex-Homosexuals and the Documentary &quot;I Do Exist&quot;==<br /> The Baptist Press wrote the following regarding the ex-homosexual documentary &quot;I Do Exist&quot;:<br /> {{cquote|Can homosexuals change? A new documentary says &quot;yes&quot; and includes interviews with people who say they've made the switch.<br /> <br /> The 48-minute video, dubbed &quot;I Do Exist,&quot; is intended for use as a discussion-starter in churches, schools and universities. It includes the stories of five homosexuals -- three women and two men -- who once were involved in homosexuality but are now heterosexual. Along the way, psychologists and psychiatrists give their thoughts as to why they believe change is possible.&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bbp19650%26quot%3B /&gt;}}<br /> ==Supporters of Homosexuality Are Doing Harm==<br /> Pastor [[Darryl L. Foster]], a former homosexual, states the supporters of homosexuality are doing harm:<br /> {{cquote|As I have said many times before gays and their lovestruck supporters are masters at changing and refining everything that convicts them. This is no surprise as the [[Apostle Paul]] taught us that they would even redefine the very image of God. They need a &quot;god&quot; who is &quot;okay&quot; with their wayward and disobedient sexuality. Flunder works hard to help people kick the drug habit, yet hypocritically allows gays and lesbians to continue in a [[Homosexuality and Health|proven path of destructive living]].&lt;ref&gt;http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/cm21.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> ==Regarding Ex-Homosexuals Falling Back Into Homosexuality==<br /> [[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]]]]<br /> [[Peter LaBarbera]] states the following regarding ex-homosexuals falling back into homosexuality:<br /> {{cquote|To homosexual and gender-bending activists, any ex-”gay” testimony threatens their central propaganda myth that some people are intrinsically (born) “gay,” bisexual or “transgender.” Some homosexual activists like Wayne Besen and the fellows at “Ex-Gay Watch” have dedicated themselves to discrediting ex-”gay” change by hyping the cases of people who have returned back to homosexual behavior. (Yes, change is difficult, but why focus exclusively on failed attempts? Imagine if someone tried to “prove” that overcoming drug addiction was impossible by popularizing only those cases of addicts who tried to go clean but fell back into their drug-abusing lifestyle.)<br /> <br /> As you read on, give thanks that high school student “John” was transformed by Jesus Christ (rather than by modern secular psychiatrists) and will not have to suffer the severe emotional confusion and deep loneliness inherent to “transgender” delusion. “John” is truly free now — to experience gratitude for his body, to fall in love with a woman, to enjoy sex in marriage, to accept the natural blessing of children and grandchildren, to worship and serve his God, to know joy.&lt;ref&gt;http://americansfortruth.com/news/why-we-need-americans-for-truth.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Hostility Towards Ex-Homosexuals and Ex-Homosexual Groups==<br /> Homosexual activists and [[liberal]]s have become angered in regards to ex-homosexual events and activities. Below are some incidents that have taken place.<br /> ===Matt Ott===<br /> In addition, the Center for Reclaiming America cited the following account of how a [[hate crime]] statute was egregiously applied to an ex-homosexual:<br /> {{cquote|In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement.<br /> <br /> The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by [[lesbianism|lesbians]] at the [[University of Wisconsin at Madison]]. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.<br /> <br /> The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.&lt;ref&gt;http://test.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/HateCrimes2.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> ===Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) - Arlington County Fair Incident===<br /> [[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|right|140px|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]], Chairman of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] and author of ''The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan to Change America'']]<br /> The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] reported the following:<br /> {{cquote|Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays &amp; Gays (PFOX) hosted a booth at the Arlington County Fair in Arlington, Virginia. PFOX has had an exhibit at this fair for the past four years.<br /> <br /> And, every year, intolerant homosexual activists have done everything they could to disrupt PFOX’s display. This year, they screamed obscenities, threw PFOX materials on the ground and demanded that PFOX leave the fair. One PFOX volunteer was hit because he is an ex-homosexual.<br /> <br /> Eventually, PFOX had to call in a police officer to eject one activist who was harassing their volunteers. According to PFOX, “This is not the first time that PFOX has had to summon the police for protection from gay activists.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3129&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ===Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) - Virginia School Counselors Incident ===<br /> The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] also reported the following Incident:<br /> {{cquote|Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX) was booted from a Virginia School Counselors Association annual convention last weekend. PFOX had been officially registered at the convention and had set up a booth to distribute materials showing that homosexuals can change.<br /> <br /> The head of the counselor’s group asked to meet with PFOX leader Regina Griggs and told her that several of the items in the booth were offensive to school counselors. Among them was NARTH President Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s book, A Parent’s Guide To Preventing Homosexuality. After offering to remove any offensive materials from the booth, Griggs was told that PFOX should leave anyway because it wasn’t worth their time to only distribute two brochures at the convention.<br /> <br /> Griggs told [[WorldNetDaily]]: “Some members didn’t want us there at all. They didn’t want an alternative opinion to the teaching they were having that afternoon.”&lt;ref&gt;http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2666&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Existence of Ex-Homosexuals is an Argument that &quot;Gay Rights&quot; Does Not Achieve Civil Rights Status==<br /> [[Image:Alvedaking.jpg‎|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Alveda King]]]]<br /> Dr. [[Alveda C. King]] is the founder of [[King for America]], Inc. which is a faith based organization. &lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bking%26quot%3B%26gt%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ekingforamerica%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ehtm%26lt%3B%2Fref%26gt%3B Dr. Alveda C. King is the daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. [[A. D. King]].&lt;ref name=%26quot%3Bking%26quot%3B /&gt;<br /> <br /> Dr. Alveda C. King stated the following to the Massachusetts General Assembly regarding the existence of ex-homosexuals is an argument that &quot;gay rights&quot; does not achieve civil rights status:<br /> {{cquote|Thirty-nine years ago, my great-uncle, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered to mindful citizens of America a prophetic dream which envisaged all of this great nation's people living in the full exercise of all rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. My forebear's dream was deeply rooted in the American dream wherein the Founders of our Union saw every lawful citizen standing in dignity outfitted by unalienable rights from God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from the tyrannies of personal whim and ideology handed down by kings, dictators, political groups, and yes, some institutions of democratic government....<br /> <br /> Yet, there is a larger body of science represented even by the above scientists that agrees that mature behavior patterns rely much more on social shaping and choices than genetic predisposition, such that these behaviors may be successfully modified by a variety of means. The food addict may eat responsibly, the alcoholic may drink responsibly or not at all, and the homosexual may live according to a wide range of choices as well. Thus, binge drinking, overeating, cocaine abuse and other behaviors do not have to be granted public latitude as a matter of right in this great nation. Certainly, these and other mutable behaviors may be practiced; they may be under constitutional protection in fact (under our privacy clauses), but they may not be granted civil rights or public protection.<br /> <br /> Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, &quot;I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.&quot; The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy...&lt;ref&gt;http://www.kingforamerica.com/jrellis-testimony.htm&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ==Senator John Kerry Comment Insults Ex-Homosexuals==<br /> [[Image:John-kerry.jpg‎|right|thumb|160px|[[John Kerry]]]]<br /> [[Cybercast News Service]] stated the following regarding Senator [[John Kerry]] comment which insulted ex-Homosexuals:<br /> {{cquote|Sen. John Kerry's declaration Wednesday that homosexuals don't have a choice about their sexual orientation has enraged individuals who identify themselves as &quot;ex-gays.&quot;...<br /> <br /> Shortly after Kerry made the remark Wednesday, reaction started pouring into [[Warren Throckmorton]], a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. Throckmorton said ex-homosexuals expressed outrage to him about Kerry's comment.<br /> <br /> &quot;Kerry's views, unfortunately, present a view of homosexuality that science does not support,&quot; Throckmorton said. &quot;Bush, wisely, has reserved judgment and his views are closer to where science has progressed to at this point. I'm concerned that Kerry misled the country.&quot;<br /> <br /> Throckmorton, considered an authority on sexual orientation research, recently released his own documentary, &quot;I Do Exist,&quot; which chronicles the lives of ex-homosexuals.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200410%5CCUL20041015b.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> ==Judge Prohibits Public Schools from Implementing Anti-ex-homosexual Curriculum==<br /> The organizaion [[Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays &amp; Gays]] (PFOX) reported the following:<br /> {{cquote|Montgomery County, Maryland – A United States District Court has granted the request of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays &amp; Gays (PFOX.org) for a temporary injunction prohibiting the Montgomery County, Maryland public schools from implementing an anti-ex-gay sex ed curriculum. <br /> <br /> U.S. District Court Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. ruled that the curriculum threatened PFOX's constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedom of speech. <br /> <br /> In his opinion, Judge Williams noted some of the curriculum's biased statements against ex-gays, including statements claiming that `[t]rying to change one's sexual response to straight or gay is usually unsuccessful,' and that `[i]n fact, it is often societal homophobia that forces people to attempt to change.'&lt;ref&gt;http://www.pfox.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=41&amp;sid=3f6326facd8169669d328749f4c1cbe8&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Overcoming Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Causes of Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality and Choice]]<br /> *[[Teen Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexuality]]<br /> [[Category:Ex-Homosexuals]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28799 An article about Ex-Homosexuals</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Causes_of_Homosexuality&diff=653872 2009-04-18T02:10:03Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>Research by the [[scientific establishment]] into the '''causes of homosexuality''' frequently assumes a philosophy of [[determinism]], treating [[homosexuality]] as an identity or orientation which is &quot;formed&quot;, rather than a behavior which is chosen. <br /> <br /> There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century and below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality.<br /> ==Homosexuality Research and the Causes of Homosexuality==<br /> [[Homosexuality Research|Homosexuality research]] in regards to the causes of [[homosexuality]]:<br /> *[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality and Choice]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Ex-Homosexuals]]<br /> *[[Teenager Homosexuality]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality Research]]<br /> *[[Homosexuality Statistics]]<br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]<br /> *[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg<br /> <br /> {{homosexualityb}}<br /> [[Category:Homosexuality]]<br /> [[Category:Psychology]]<br /> [[Category:Sociology]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tax_Day_Tea_Party&diff=653863 2009-04-18T02:07:17Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Headnew.jpg|right|380px|thumb| Tax Day Tea Party]]<br /> <br /> '''Tax Day Tea Party''' is a nationwide organized event that protested the [[generational theft]] of public [[tax]] dollars by the federal goverment. In the spirit of the founding fathers [[Boston Tea Party]], the organizers; Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter, and the DontGo Movement, created a massive grassroots movement with scheduled protests in all fifty states on April 15th. <br /> ==Founding==<br /> Their website states:<br /> ''&quot;The Tea Party protests, in their current form, began in early 2009 when [[Rick Santelli]], the On Air Editor for CNBC, set out on a rant to expose the bankrupt liberal agenda of the [[White House]] Administration and [[Congress]]. Specifically, the flawed “Stimulus Bill” and pork filled budget.&quot;''<br /> <br /> ==Mainstream Media==<br /> The [[MSM|broadcast networks]] evening newscasts on April 15, 2009 provided prominent coverage of the Tea Party rallies across the nation with time for the views of participants, but they tried to discredit the protests as a front for &quot;corporate interests&quot; or a &quot;fistful of rightward leaning Web sites&quot; -- ''a concern for motives and hidden agendas the same programs lacked when championing the 2006 pro-[[illegal immigrant]] marches.'' &lt;ref&gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/16/abc-cbs-nbc-try-discredit-tea-party-protests], Brent Baker, ''NewsBusters.org'', April 16, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Neil Cavuto]] commented on the Tea Parties:<br /> {{cquote|Taxed, but not spent.<br /> <br /> Not by a long shot.<br /> <br /> Here's the deal: Let's stick with the deal.<br /> <br /> The rallies. The protests. Apparently what happens at a tea party doesn't end at that party.<br /> <br /> Word now, these guys who fumed, are now...on fire.<br /> <br /> And far from cooling off, indications now they're just heating up.<br /> <br /> Philadelphia this weekend.<br /> <br /> A huge new push for a proposition in California this week.<br /> <br /> And that's just for starters.<br /> <br /> The rage dismissed as a Republican rant by much of the media this week... Barreling on by a lot more than just Republicans these next few weeks, and months -- and to hear their most rabid supporters tell it, years if need be.<br /> <br /> Supporters who are rich, and not so rich, and not at all rich. They're Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Average folks. Ticked-off folks.<br /> <br /> Folks Washington might dismiss as kooks... but would be kooky even thinking that.<br /> <br /> Because remember this.<br /> <br /> Populist rages start like this.<br /> <br /> Always have. Always will.<br /> <br /> It's the stuff of history.<br /> <br /> And as you'll soon see, about to make history.}}<br /> <br /> ==Liberal Infiltrators==<br /> [[ACORN]], [[Huffington Post]] and other [[Barack Obama]] supporters criticized the tax day tea parties, calling them a 'gripe fest by bunch of [[conservatives]]'. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=94297 ACORN to crash Tax Day tea parties?] Worldnetdaily, April 8, 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Links To Events==<br /> [[Image:Mashup.JPG|right|350px|thumb| 2009 Tea Parties ]]<br /> A [[Google]] mashup project lists tax day tea parties. &lt;ref&gt;[http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=112875499027114938790.0004647d9f61bab744fd4&amp;ll=38.272689,-96.679687&amp;spn=27.495109,57.128906&amp;z=4&amp;source=embed 2009 Tea Parties]Google Maps&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> * [http://taxdayteaparty.com ONLINE HQ FOR THE NATIONWIDE TAX DAY TEA PARTY]<br /> * [http://clevelandteaparty.webs.com Conservapedia attending this rally]<br /> * [http://www.topconservativesontwitter.org Top Conservatives On Twitter]<br /> * [http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/page/tea-party Smart Girl Politics]<br /> * [http://www.operationtea.com Operation Tea]<br /> * [http://www.dontgomovement.com Don't Go Movement]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:taxation]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Branch_Davidians&diff=653858 2009-04-18T02:06:13Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''Branch Davidians''' were a religious sect that broke off from the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, [[Texas]]. A stand-off between the U.S. [[government]] and beginning on February 28th, 1993 ended on April 19th when a fire broke out in the main church building that was under siege. The fire killed 79 people, 25 of which were children.<br /> <br /> The Branch Davidians were under siege after a warrant was secured by the U.S. [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives|Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms]] for allegedly having illegal [[firearm]]s and a [[drug]] [[laboratory]] inside their main [[church]] building. There were also alleged reports of [[abuse]] of children and [[polygamy]] committed by the church leader, [[David Koresh]], who claimed he was the [[messiah]].<br /> The event was controversial because some believe the actions of the government were too harsh and that they did not take into effect the mentality of the Branch Davidians. Some also believe the [[BATF]] started the fire that burnt down the building and killed those inside, and this belief is supported by the evidence in several documentary [[film]]s, such as ''Waco: The Rules of Engagement'' and ''Waco: A New Revelation''. These films contradicted the longstanding claims by the BATF and [[FBI]] that no [[pyrotechnic]] devices were used at Waco, causing them to retract their claims and Congressional hearings into the Waco siege to be reopened.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> * ''Waco: The Rules of Engagement'', documentary film, 1997<br /> * ''Waco: A New Revelation'', documentary film, 1999<br /> * Thibodeau, David. ''A Place Called Waco: A Survivor's Story''. HarperCollins, 1999.<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Ruby Ridge, Idaho]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:cults]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mennonite&diff=651530 2009-04-11T01:37:12Z

<p>Castled: </p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}A '''Mennonite''' is an adherent to an [[Anabaptist]] movement begun in the 1500's by [[Menno Simons]]. They practice adult [[baptism]], [[pacifism]], simple living and have an emphasis on community. Mennonites reject the notion of [[sola scriptura]], believing instead that the Bible was inspired when it was written and therefore must be inspired when it is read. <br /> <br /> Mennonites can be found in all parts of the globe, although they are chiefly to be found in [[North America]] (including Latin America), South America (Argentina) and the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. <br /> <br /> Some Old Order Mennonites have a simply way of living, wear traditional clothes and avoid modern technology. Other Mennonites use the same types of technology and wear the same types of clothes as other modern people. Some Mennonites shun the [[Amish]].<br /> <br /> ==Disaster relief==<br /> <br /> Mennonites are strongly involved with disaster relief, particularly through the [[Mennonite Central Committee]] and [[Mennonite Disaster Services]].<br /> <br /> == Seperation and distincit believes == <br /> <br /> The Old order Mennonites choose to shun themselves from the outside mainly becuase they believe the technogoly that we use has been created by the devil and it is pure evil although there have been times when these groups have used technogoly such as when there is an emergency they will phone for help. Some of these communties also do not meet churches rather homes. Funerals are also quite different they dress in all white as if they were angels read from the Ordung , proceed to recite the lord's prayer and then gather in a home where there pray for many hours for the deceased persons soul. <br /> [[Category:Christianity]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dogwood&diff=650498 2009-04-09T01:01:26Z

<p>Castled: New page: A Hardcore Christian punk band from San Diego, many of thier songs Teach of the christian faith some examples of this Jesus , Patriotic Pride and thier most well known hit Do or die.</p> <hr /> <div>A Hardcore Christian punk band from San Diego, many of thier songs Teach of the christian faith some examples of this Jesus , Patriotic Pride and thier most well known hit Do or die.</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Punk&diff=650497 2009-04-09T00:57:45Z

<p>Castled: /* Christianity in Punk Music */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Punk music''', or '''punk rock''', originated in a club called [[CBGB]] in [[New York City]] in the mid-1970s with [[Television]] and [[The Ramones]] followed by the still popular [[The Dead Kennedys]]. It was seen as a response to the cultural sterility of [[progressive rock]] and other highly commercialized forms of rock. Although punk had limited popularity in America, it quickly spread to the [[UK]] where bands such as [[The Sex Pistols]], [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]] and [[The Clash]] became massively popular.<br /> <br /> ==Musicality==<br /> Punk is charactarised by up-tempo arrangements, and seldom employs instruments other than [[guitar]], bass, and drums. By design, the songs are usually structured to be very simplistic, with the 1-4-5 [[chord]] progression being typical. The lyrics, which are almost always written in a 1-1, 2-2 [[rhyme scheme]], can be concerned with any topic, but usually deal with some aspect of youth culture or express some theme of &quot;punk attitude&quot; such as opposition to authority.<br /> <br /> ==Dancing==<br /> Various methods of dancing to punk rock have emerged, such as skanking, pogo-ing, and slam dancing. Most punk-style dancing is synasthetically expressive of an emotion, rather than a particular representational style, such as a jitterbug. Dancing tends to be individual or communal, seldom couples-oriented.<br /> <br /> ==Punk Culture==<br /> Punks typically distinguish themselves from others with their unmistakable appearances. This has included things such as Mohawk hairstyles, tight pants, studded leather jackets, bullet belts, combat boots, etc. Clothing and hairstyles vary widely throughout the punk scene, and often particular outfits denote particular strains of punk or core-beliefs. Most true punks however will claim that the punk subculture is more based on the idea of non-conformity.<br /> <br /> ==Subgenres of punk==<br /> As punk rock grew in popularity, several subgenres became apparent, some of which represent very fine distinctions (such as anarcho-punk), or small (Muslim punk) or localized (Nardcore) groupings. Some subgeneric names are probably useful, however, or at least well-known. Hardcore punk, usually characterized by fast tempos and a garage-band sound, was a staple of West Coast punk ''circa'' 1980, especially in the important Southern California market, and has since spread throughout the world. New Wave, despite sharing similar roots with punk, developed its own distinctive sounds and is today not usually considered punk. Forms such as grunge rock and emo grew to the point where they are arguably rock genres in their own right. Among the many punk subgenres, real or imagined, are:<br /> <br /> * [[hardcore]]<br /> * [[psychobilly]]<br /> * [[pop-punk]]<br /> * [[emo]]<br /> * [[crust (punk)|crust]]<br /> * [[Straight Edge]]<br /> <br /> ==Notable Punk bands==<br /> ===United States===<br /> * [[Against Me!]]<br /> * [[Anti-Flag]]<br /> * [[Bad Religion]]<br /> * [[Black Flag]]<br /> * [[Blondie]]<br /> * [[Dead Boys]]<br /> * [[Dead Kennedys]]<br /> * [[Dropkick Murphys]]<br /> * [[Richard Hell]]<br /> * [[Minutemen (band)|Minutemen]]<br /> * [[Misfits]]<br /> * [[New York Dolls]]<br /> * [[The Ramones]]<br /> * [[Patti Smith]]<br /> * [[Social Distortion]]<br /> * [[Talking Heads]]<br /> * [[Television(band)|Television]]<br /> * [[X (band)|X]]<br /> <br /> ===United Kingdom===<br /> * [[Adicts]]<br /> * The [[Anti-Nowhere League]]<br /> * [[The Buzzcocks]]<br /> * [[The Clash]]<br /> * [[Conflict]]<br /> * [[Crass]]<br /> * [[The Damned]]<br /> * [[The Exploited]]<br /> * [[The Fall]]<br /> * [[Flux of Pink Indians]]<br /> * [[Poison Girls]]<br /> * [[The Sex Pistols]]<br /> * [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]]<br /> * [[The Stranglers]]<br /> * [[Subhumans]]<br /> * [[U.K. Subs]]<br /> * [[Wire]]<br /> <br /> ==Christianity in Punk Music==<br /> There are a few bands that are considered to be Christian punk bands. Some examples are:<br /> *[[MxPx]]<br /> *[[Slick Shoes]]<br /> *[[Dogwood]]<br /> *[[Audio Adrenaline]]<br /> *[[Hawk Nelson]]<br /> *[[Stellar Kart]]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [http://www.punkvoter.com Punkvoter.com]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Punk| ]]</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Should_certain_books_be_banned_from_libraries%3F&diff=644925 2009-03-26T20:27:28Z

<p>Castled: /* Yes */</p> <hr /> <div>Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as &quot;Libertarianism&quot;--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.<br /> <br /> ::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.<br /> <br /> ::--<br /> <br /> Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Generally speaking, &quot;liberal&quot; censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''<br /> :The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.<br /> :[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] &lt;small&gt; [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] &lt;/small&gt; 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first ammendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and surpress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]<br /> <br /> You really come off as a fascist, ya know.<br /> <br /> There is nothing wrong with seeing or hearing a viewpoint that conflicts with your own. If nothing else, it is a mental exercise to see if you have a) the faith you proclaim to have (if you're religious) or b) evidence for your religion/theory/assertion. The only reason to ban anything is if it conflicts with a law. I would like to direct your attention to the first amendment: &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...&quot;<br /> If a person wishes not to see something in the library, all she or he has to do is not look at it. Same with the internet, but that's a different argument.<br /> There are a few reasons people want to see things banned. One is that it reveals a deep flaw in their reasoning, but nobody will admit that. A second reason is that they think people shouldn't see that idea or viewpoint, which, for children, makes sense (we do have age restrictions on items such as porn). For adults, however, it doesn't make that much sense. If they are going to be functioning adults, they should develop maturity and strength in their beliefs (even if that belief is the lack of a belief system), enough strength to encounter these things and realize that they either &quot;have a point, but I don't agree with that,&quot; &quot;they don't have a valid point, and I don't agree with that,&quot; or &quot;they have a valid point, let me check it out and go deeper into my own belief system to figure out what's going on&quot; [[User:Pwulf|Pwulf]]<br /> <br /> If we were to allow such a terrible thing to happen, we're another step closer to a 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 scenario. Without books, without concrete literature to sway and form our perspectives on life, we would easily be strayed to blind following. WE should be exposed to disgusting, terrible and downright awful things on a daily basis if it does nothing more than strengthens our convictions. If we read these things and thus find them interesting or agreeable, is it bad? No, &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; books alike have swayed people to do crazy things. We just need to maintain a clear perspective at all times and don't become too radical. Taking the choice away from someone is downright irresponsible and morally corrupt. [[User:smokeandmirrors|smokeandmirrors]] <br /> <br /> ==Yes==<br /> <br /> I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam <br /> :But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] &lt;small&gt; [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] &lt;/small&gt; 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]<br /> Alll books should be banned that do not includes god<br /> :Dear Mr. Khumeni (I assume that's who wrote the proceeding comment), please contact me for a list of books that do not mention God, but may just strech your mind, increase your moral sensitivites and make you a better person, and a better Christian. Sincerely, Parcival<br /> :You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Just a comment to the &quot;Harry Potter and the Occult Influence&quot; above - the kind of &quot;magick&quot; which the Bible forbids is specifically sorcery, i.e., summoning the dead, demons, or demons masquerading as angels. This type of magic, when it even appears in the HP books, is specifically denounced as evil, and infact the kind of magic used is much more in line with Moses' miracles, or a &quot;God-given talent&quot; - there is no pact with the devil, just what you were born with. Rowling goes further than that, and in fact a major theme of the books is that Love (which, as we all know, IS God, and God IS Love) is the highest form of magic, the most powerful force in the Harry Potter universe. <br /> ::Also - the Bible also has many instances of verbal attacks being allowed, so long as it is constructive in intent. The same goes with physical attacks. If anything, a conservative should be more worried about the increasingly-large &quot;Nanny State/Big Brother&quot; that &quot;progressivism&quot; inculculates, than in which books might allegedly encourage minors to ill. Looking into history, we can see that large-scale censorship is always allied with the most &quot;progressive&quot; and &quot;socialist&quot; regimes - and that the capitalist, conservative view should always rest on absolute freedom of speech (not acts, which can infringe on others rights).[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 05:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one. I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech. A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things. Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things. Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on &quot;how to cast spells&quot; should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]<br /> <br /> You could argue that since the bible says &quot;do not bear false witness&quot; (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me , since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Libraries have and already do censor books becuase there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for becuase it was to conserative.<br /> <br /> ==No, no, no, no...no.==<br /> Tell me, what does censorship accomplish? It takes away someone's access to information. Now that is done, all that is left is one side. One sided information creates drones. People who are the same. Now, if everyone were the same, we couldn't really have progress. Here are some examples of people who have been labeled different, people with new ideas, that were considered bad. MLK, Galileo Galilei, and Jesus. -[[User:Nono|Nono]] 16:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No idea in and of itself, has ever caused harm. It is how a person uses that idea that causes harm. Reading something opens your mind to possibilities. it is the choice of the path you take that defines who you are, what you are.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:31, 11 November 2008 (EST) <br /> <br /> [[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]<br /> <br /> ==Yes!==<br /> <br /> Censorship indeed takes away someone's access to information, but as long as the side that's left is the side that's good, then it should definitely be enacted, even if only to prevent children from getting at evil books like The Catcher in The Rye, and LaVey's Satanic Bible. Censorship limits thought, but if you take that stance, then prosecuting criminals limits their freedoms. Censorship should be used as a proactive criminal justice system, taking the ideas of Naked Lunch and others like it out of people's heads for good. -[[user:Honomo|Honomo]] 21:27, 9 October 2008<br /> <br /> :Really? The side that's left is the side that's good? Good? Now I can hardly believe that you would say something like that? Who are you to judge what is good and what isn't. Ecclesiastes 12:14:<br /> &quot;For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil&quot; God will judge, certainly not you. Do not start to believe that you can decide what is right and what is wrong. You can have an opinion about it, a belief, a hope, but you can certainly not know. And every time you ban a book, a movie, a word or a thought, you take undue power into your hands. You may believe that something is wrong, but let your children and your friends decide for themselves. Book banning is the reason why people are afraid of faith. Never hide science, or injury or madness, it's the only to understand the world that surrounds us. And if you trust your faith in God, if you truly trust it, you would certainly be unafraid of &quot;Catcher in the Rye&quot;.<br /> And how about a suggestion: read it, just to see what it does to you, before attacking it without thought.<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> We should not seek to censorship books, because they represent the entirety of human knowledge. If we were to begin widespread censorship, then we would be travelling down a very slippery slope. Just as we cannot and should not deny events such as the Holocaust existed, we should not disclude ourselves from realising that other viewpoints exist than our own in this world. How can anybody possibly be allowed to distinguish for themselves what is right and wrong without having seen both sides? [[User:Masterofhisdomain|Masterofhisdomain]] 16:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)</div>

Castled https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Should_certain_books_be_banned_from_libraries%3F&diff=644924 2009-03-26T20:26:59Z

<p>Castled: /* Yes */</p> <hr /> <div>Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as &quot;Libertarianism&quot;--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.<br /> <br /> ::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.<br /> <br /> ::--<br /> <br /> Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Generally speaking, &quot;liberal&quot; censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''<br /> :The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.<br /> :[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] &lt;small&gt; [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] &lt;/small&gt; 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first ammendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and surpress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]<br /> <br /> You really come off as a fascist, ya know.<br /> <br /> There is nothing wrong with seeing or hearing a viewpoint that conflicts with your own. If nothing else, it is a mental exercise to see if you have a) the faith you proclaim to have (if you're religious) or b) evidence for your religion/theory/assertion. The only reason to ban anything is if it conflicts with a law. I would like to direct your attention to the first amendment: &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...&quot;<br /> If a person wishes not to see something in the library, all she or he has to do is not look at it. Same with the internet, but that's a different argument.<br /> There are a few reasons people want to see things banned. One is that it reveals a deep flaw in their reasoning, but nobody will admit that. A second reason is that they think people shouldn't see that idea or viewpoint, which, for children, makes sense (we do have age restrictions on items such as porn). For adults, however, it doesn't make that much sense. If they are going to be functioning adults, they should develop maturity and strength in their beliefs (even if that belief is the lack of a belief system), enough strength to encounter these things and realize that they either &quot;have a point, but I don't agree with that,&quot; &quot;they don't have a valid point, and I don't agree with that,&quot; or &quot;they have a valid point, let me check it out and go deeper into my own belief system to figure out what's going on&quot; [[User:Pwulf|Pwulf]]<br /> <br /> If we were to allow such a terrible thing to happen, we're another step closer to a 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 scenario. Without books, without concrete literature to sway and form our perspectives on life, we would easily be strayed to blind following. WE should be exposed to disgusting, terrible and downright awful things on a daily basis if it does nothing more than strengthens our convictions. If we read these things and thus find them interesting or agreeable, is it bad? No, &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; books alike have swayed people to do crazy things. We just need to maintain a clear perspective at all times and don't become too radical. Taking the choice away from someone is downright irresponsible and morally corrupt. [[User:smokeandmirrors|smokeandmirrors]] <br /> <br /> ==Yes==<br /> <br /> I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam <br /> :But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] &lt;small&gt; [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] &lt;/small&gt; 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]<br /> Alll books should be banned that do not includes god<br /> :Dear Mr. Khumeni (I assume that's who wrote the proceeding comment), please contact me for a list of books that do not mention God, but may just strech your mind, increase your moral sensitivites and make you a better person, and a better Christian. Sincerely, Parcival<br /> :You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Just a comment to the &quot;Harry Potter and the Occult Influence&quot; above - the kind of &quot;magick&quot; which the Bible forbids is specifically sorcery, i.e., summoning the dead, demons, or demons masquerading as angels. This type of magic, when it even appears in the HP books, is specifically denounced as evil, and infact the kind of magic used is much more in line with Moses' miracles, or a &quot;God-given talent&quot; - there is no pact with the devil, just what you were born with. Rowling goes further than that, and in fact a major theme of the books is that Love (which, as we all know, IS God, and God IS Love) is the highest form of magic, the most powerful force in the Harry Potter universe. <br /> ::Also - the Bible also has many instances of verbal attacks being allowed, so long as it is constructive in intent. The same goes with physical attacks. If anything, a conservative should be more worried about the increasingly-large &quot;Nanny State/Big Brother&quot; that &quot;progressivism&quot; inculculates, than in which books might allegedly encourage minors to ill. Looking into history, we can see that large-scale censorship is always allied with the most &quot;progressive&quot; and &quot;socialist&quot; regimes - and that the capitalist, conservative view should always rest on absolute freedom of speech (not acts, which can infringe on others rights).[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 05:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one. I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech. A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things. Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things. Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on &quot;how to cast spells&quot; should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]<br /> <br /> You could argue that since the bible says &quot;do not bear false witness&quot; (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me , since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Libraries hav and already do censor books becuase there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for becuase it was to conserative.<br /> <br /> ==No, no, no, no...no.==<br /> Tell me, what does censorship accomplish? It takes away someone's access to information. Now that is done, all that is left is one side. One sided information creates drones. People who are the same. Now, if everyone were the same, we couldn't really have progress. Here are some examples of people who have been labeled different, people with new ideas, that were considered bad. MLK, Galileo Galilei, and Jesus. -[[User:Nono|Nono]] 16:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No idea in and of itself, has ever caused harm. It is how a person uses that idea that causes harm. Reading something opens your mind to possibilities. it is the choice of the path you take that defines who you are, what you are.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:31, 11 November 2008 (EST) <br /> <br /> [[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]<br /> <br /> ==Yes!==<br /> <br /> Censorship indeed takes away someone's access to information, but as long as the side that's left is the side that's good, then it should definitely be enacted, even if only to prevent children from getting at evil books like The Catcher in The Rye, and LaVey's Satanic Bible. Censorship limits thought, but if you take that stance, then prosecuting criminals limits their freedoms. Censorship should be used as a proactive criminal justice system, taking the ideas of Naked Lunch and others like it out of people's heads for good. -[[user:Honomo|Honomo]] 21:27, 9 October 2008<br /> <br /> :Really? The side that's left is the side that's good? Good? Now I can hardly believe that you would say something like that? Who are you to judge what is good and what isn't. Ecclesiastes 12:14:<br /> &quot;For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil&quot; God will judge, certainly not you. Do not start to believe that you can decide what is right and what is wrong. You can have an opinion about it, a belief, a hope, but you can certainly not know. And every time you ban a book, a movie, a word or a thought, you take undue power into your hands. You may believe that something is wrong, but let your children and your friends decide for themselves. Book banning is the reason why people are afraid of faith. Never hide science, or injury or madness, it's the only to understand the world that surrounds us. And if you trust your faith in God, if you truly trust it, you would certainly be unafraid of &quot;Catcher in the Rye&quot;.<br /> And how about a suggestion: read it, just to see what it does to you, before attacking it without thought.<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> We should not seek to censorship books, because they represent the entirety of human knowledge. If we were to begin widespread censorship, then we would be travelling down a very slippery slope. Just as we cannot and should not deny events such as the Holocaust existed, we should not disclude ourselves from realising that other viewpoints exist than our own in this world. How can anybody possibly be allowed to distinguish for themselves what is right and wrong without having seen both sides? [[User:Masterofhisdomain|Masterofhisdomain]] 16:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)</div>

Castled