Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Al Gore

2017-02-09T00:36:36Z

ChristianAdvocate: FUCK YOU THIS IS NOT FUCKING VANDALISM

{{President
|image=Al Gore VP portrait 1994.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr.''' ( born March 31, 1948) was the 45th [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001), succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985–93, respectively. He was given the Nobel prize for his claims about an impending [[global warming]] crisis. He has no degree in atmospheric sciences, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, or climatology. Gore took two science classes as an undergraduate, scoring a "C+" in one and a "D" in the other.<ref>http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm</ref> Among his notable achievements, the one he is least known for is casting the tie-breaking vote to [[tax]] elderly [[Social Security]] benefits who earn as little as $22,000 per year.

Gore was the [[Democratic Party]]'s candidate for President in the 2000 election, running on a ticket with Sen. [[Joe Lieberman|Joseph Lieberman]] of [[Connecticut]]. Gore's decision to pursue a recount and subsequent action by Democratic-appointed Florida Justices were found to violate the [[Equal Protection Clause]] guaranteed to all voters by the [[United States Constitution]].

In his early life, Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) [[Vanderbilt University]]. He also served in the [[United States Army]] and worked as a war correspondent during the [[Vietnam War]].<ref>Kennedy,William V. ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. <http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html></ref> He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]], but the two announced on 6/1/2010 that they were separating after forty years of marriage.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/01/al-tipper-gore-break-years-marriage/ Gore's Break Up After 40 Years of Marriage]</ref>

In 2012 Gore sold his liberal television network [[Current TV]], which had a focus on environmental and social issues, to oil-rich billionaires and the [[Al Jazeera]] network. It suffered from low ratings and unprofitability (i.e., not able to meet costs, such as paying workers) under his management.
== Sexual Assault Accusations & Investigation ==

Not long after the split became public, Portland, Oregon police announced that they had investigated Gore on sexual assault charges over an encounter with massage therapist Molly Hagerty in October 2006.<ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdRlS1EbF66_3PpAvC9UlCbBtuqgD9GIKE580 AP; Police release tape from Al Gore sexual assault accuser's interview</ref>

Hagerty, a massage therapist to the stars, has accused the former vice president of repeatedly groping and kissing her during a late-night, alcohol-fueled attack in a [[Oregon]] luxury hotel suite in October 2006. Detectives investigated the claims in 2006 and 2009 but decided not to pursue the case. However Portland Police Chief Michael Reese said on July 1, 2010, that ''"we have determined there were procedural issues with the 2009 investigation that merit reopening the case." Officers took the accuser's statement but didn't proceed further and didn't clear that decision with higher-ups. In addition, prosecutors were not made aware of the 2009 investigation until recently."'' <ref>[http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/portland_police_mishandled_gor.html Portland police mishandled Al Gore sex-abuse case, Chief says.]</ref>

==Political career==

Al Gore followed his father, [[Albert Gore, Sr.]] a [[Democratic]] Senator from [[Tennessee]], into [[Congress]]. His father was a supporter of the [[New Deal]] who was finally defeated by [[Bill Brock]] in 1970, despite having sent his son to [[Vietnam]] in order to bolster the Gore senatorial campaign.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/stories/gore/</ref>

Al Gore was initially somewhat [[conservative]] on social issues, supporting [[Clarence Thomas]] for the [[Supreme Court]] and, along with his wife, opposing offensive lyrics in rock music. But as his presidential aspirations grew, Gore became increasingly [[liberal]].

Gore ran for president in 1988 but was defeated in the presidential primaries by [[Michael Dukakis]] of [[Massachusetts]]. Gore then continued to serve in the Senate.<ref>While serving in the Senate, Gore introduced the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, signed December 9, 1991, which his supporters claim helped develop the Internet and the National Research and Education Network. [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:@@@L&summ2=m&] [http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/internet_history_90s.shtml] When Gore himself bragged about creating the internet, he was referring to prior legislation (see quotations below).</ref>

In the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 Presidential Election]], Democratic nominee [[Bill Clinton]] selected Gore as his running mate. They won the election, and Gore was sworn in as Vice President on January 20, 1993. Clinton and Gore were elected to a second term in [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996]]. Gore had little influence in the [[Clinton Administration]], and almost nothing of significance is attributed to him.

As is often the case for incumbent Vice Presidents, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential Election]]. He lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore garnered more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the presidency.<ref>Leip, David. "2000 Presidential General Election Results." David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. 2005. 18 Mar. 2007 <http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000>.</ref>

===Cast tie breaking vote to increase taxes on Social Security===
In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on [[Social Security]] benefits of the elderly and disabled.<ref>http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/seniorsd.txt</ref> The final version of the bill passed by the [[Democrat]]ically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20040408115747/www.ssa.gov/OACT/HOP/hopi.htm</ref> of benefits (or "annuity payments" as they were originally called). [[Vice President]] Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% [[income tax]] rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vLg4iJR0J9kC&pg=PA16593&lpg=PA16593&dq=Vice+President+Gore+cast+the+tie-breaking+vote%2Bsocial+security&source=bl&ots=-ImIDX6fHa&sig=ttWVUNAIVsLQoEg1ZhCntHB_02Y&hl=en&ei=dobVTMr9HoOglAe0iuX9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Vice%20President%20Gore%20cast%20the%20tie-breaking%20vote%2Bsocial%20security&f=false Congressional Record, Comments by Rep. Christopher Cox,] July 27, 2000.</ref>

== Al Gore and uncharitableness ==

''See also'': [[Liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

The political magazine the ''[[American Spectator]]'' declared:
{{cquote|The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity...<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044126&c=1</ref>}}

==Early career==
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredGoreFiny.jpg|thumb|180px|left|From left to right: Fred Phelps, Al Gore, and former Kansas Gov. Joan Finney.]]
In 1988 Gore courted the support of controversial [[activist]] [[Fred Phelps]] of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] in Topeka, Kansas. In appreciation for Phelps' help and support of Gore, Phelps was provided tickets to the [[inauguration]] of [[President Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref> Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref>
<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681</ref>

==Current activities==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries and a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. He was also mentioned as a possible [[2008 presidential election|2008 presidential candidate]].
[[File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|right|200px]]
Gore and the ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' shared the 2007 [[Nobel Peace Prize]] for his work on [[climate change]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312024,00.html</ref>

Gore is the author of ''The [[Assault on Reason]]''. He also starred in the 2006 film about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Academy Award]]. In 2007, the British High Court directed teachers to inform students to whom they show the film that it "is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument" and to draw attention to eleven specific inaccuracies. Furthermore, the court advised, "If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of ... the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political [[indoctrination]]."<ref>Sheppard, Noel. "Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’." [Weblog NewsBusters] 08 Oct 2007. Newsbusters. 9 Oct 2007 <[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies -eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth]>.</ref> Despite the errors, the judge also concluded "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.” <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html</ref>

Speaking in Manhattan to the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative, Gore wants to use "civil disobedience" to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to capture carbon.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants] Fox News, September 24, 2008</ref> Civil disobedience or the call for intentional violation of laws is an extremist point of view. It is believed that he was speaking in regards to Western nation coal plants. No mention of China and their coal production. The gravest threat from coal pollution comes from China, in which two plants are constructed per week and 500 more plants over the next 10 years.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9947668 China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs] NPR, May 2, 2007</ref>

==Quotes==
* Gore said, '''''"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."''''' <ref>Blitzer, Wolf. Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition'. CNN. 9 March 1999. 2 June 2007 <[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000 /transcript.gore/]></ref>

* Gore falsely claimed that he discovered problems in Love Canal and fixed them. He said:

:"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/02/politics/main72638.shtml</ref>

:"That was the one that started it all. ... We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."

:"I love [[Van Jones]]. I love his work. I love his heart and his commitment and his intellect. I love his mission. He has wisely picked a part of this set of interwoven challenges that should have been addressed much more forcefully by me and others long ago.”<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=all</ref>

* During an interview with ''Slate'', regarding the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, a question was asked concerning a sense from the [[Climategate]] e-mails and from data that was "hidden and hoarded." These truths are the opposite of the case Al Gore made in his book about having an open and fair debate. Gore responded with a lack of command of the most basic details of anything related to Earth and climate. He said,
{{cquote|I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. [...] So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing [...] but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.<ref>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant-tell-time-thinks-most-recent-climategate-email-is-more-than-10-years-old/</ref><ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2237789/</ref>}}
:The most recent emails in Climategate were from November 12, 2009.

* In an interview aired on the ''[[CBS]]'' ''Early Show'', Al Gore read his global warming poem to Harry Smith.<ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/15/al-gore-reads-poem-harry-smith-says-wow-i-m-happy-hear-it-your-voice Gore Reads Poem, Harry Smith Swoons: 'Wow...I’m Happy to Hear it in Your Voice'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', December 15, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120709/content/01125109.guest.html Algore's Idiotic Poem and All the Latest from the ClimateGate Stack], RushLimbaugh.com, December 7, 2009.</ref>

{{Cquote|
:''One thin September soon''
:''A floating continent disappears''
:''In midnight sun''

:''Vapors rise as''
:''Fever settles on an acid sea''
:''Neptune's bones dissolve''

:''Snow glides from the mountain''
:''Ice fathers floods for a season''
:''A hard rain comes quickly''

:''Then dirt is parched''
:''Kindling is placed in the forest''
:''For the lightning's celebration''

:''Unknown creatures''
:''Take their leave, unmourned''
:''Horsemen ready their stirrups''

:''Passion seeks heroes and friends''
:''The bell of the city''
:''On the hill is rung''

:''The shepherd cries''
:''The hour of choosing has arrived''
:''Here are your tools''}}

==Criticism==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]
[[Ann Coulter]] claims Gore exaggerated his military service record: "Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. 'I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later,' he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months."<ref>http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi</ref>

In 2007, Al Gore received criticism for his high electricity use. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. In the year since the 2007 criticism, energy use at Gore's mansion increased 10%.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080619a.html</ref>
Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from "green", or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power.

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties, specifically the mining of zinc adjacent to his property that he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. New owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From ''The Tennessean'' (3/12/07):
<blockquote>
"Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

'We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,' Gore wrote."
</blockquote>
However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

Al Gore's fondness for using [[buzzword]]s became the focus of a prank played on Gore by students at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in 1996. MIT students distributed a [[bingo]] card containing meaningless buzzwords Gore was known for peppering his speeches with, including "infobahn", "knowledge worker", "vector", "high confidence", and "information marketplace". Sure enough, during Gore's speech at MIT, a commotion erupted in the audience when enough buzzwords were said to complete the Bingo card.<ref>http://hacks.mit.edu/by_year/1996/gore/</ref> Gore's current favorite buzzword is "unified national smart grid", which he promotes in conjunction with his catastrophic global warming prophecies, earning him ridicule as "The Goracle" in a ''[[Washington Post]]'' article by Dana Milbank.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html</ref> [[Bjorn Lomborg]] has additionally criticized Al Gore for framing global warming using buzzword terms as some sort of transcendent generational quest, as when Gore called the so-called "climate crisis" the "chance to experience...a generational mission, the exhileration of a compelling moral purpose, a shared and unifying cause, the thrill of...the restless human need for transcendence."<ref>Lomborg, Bjorn. ''Cool It''. New York: Vintage Books, 2008.</ref>

==Fabrications and blunders==
*On February 20, 2000, Gore claimed he has “always, always, always” supported [[Roe v. Wade]]. However, in 1977, he voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that [[abortion]] “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating over the course of his entire U.S. House career (1977 to 1984) from the National Right to Life Committee.<ref>http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html</ref>

*On February 4, 2000, Gore claimed, “We had a huge event with 3,000 people at [[Ohio State University]].” In reality, “Officials at that rally said the room where it had taken place did not hold more than 1,200 people, and, given the area needed for the staging erected for the occasion, they estimated the crowd at 500,” according to known [[liberal]] media source the ''[[New York Times]]''.

*On February 2, 2000, on [[Good Morning America]] Al Gore claimed, “We won in every single [[demographic category]]” in the [[New Hampshire]] [[primary]]. In reality [[Bill Bradley]] carried [[male]] voters and voters aged 18–29, according to exit polls.

Gore's comment that he "took the initiative in creating the [[Internet]]" was criticized in the ''St. Petersburg Times'' (Florida):

:This was not the first time Gore has overreached. A year ago Gore told reporters that he and his wife, [[Tipper Gore|Tipper]], at the time when they were college sweethearts, were the inspiration for the novel "[[Love Story]]." That came as news to the befuddled author, [[Erich Segal]]. [http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/]

Gore wrote an opinion piece in the ''New York Times'' in which he said "[he] genuinely wishes [[global warming]] was an illusion," claiming it is very real. This despite mountains of fraud uncovered by [[ClimateGate]]. [[Fred Thompson]] replied, "Hey, Al... the genie says you still have two wishes left." <ref>[http://twitter.com/fredthompson/status/9876626632 Fred Thompson, Twitter feed, March 2, 2010]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Al Gore|Al Gore on Breaking News]]
*[[Algore]]

==External links==
*[http://www.algore.com/ Official website]
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html Al Gore News and Commentary] from the ''New York Times''
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/al-gore/ What Liberals Say - Al Gore], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.compeaus.com/frozen.html Yearly Frozen Gore Ice Sculpture In Alaska]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Tennessee]]
[[Category:Baptists]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Failed Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Current TV]]

Liberal

2017-02-09T00:35:36Z

ChristianAdvocate: THIS IS NOT VANDALISM

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|175px|[[Barack Hussein Obama]] advocates the use of unsuccessful [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]. He is known to be the most liberal and least successful president in history.]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who advocates for progress and reform.<ref>http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal</ref> Liberals also support the [[censorship]] and [[denial]] of [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=2062</ref> Liberals who are a part of the [[secular left]] prefer the [[atheism|atheist religion]] over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans.<ref>http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/232212/fox-contributor-claims-rolling-stone-uva-story-part-of-liberal-plot-to-romanticize-being-a-victim-of-rape/</ref> Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including [[same-sex marriage|homosexual "marriage"]]. Liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/05/23/reform-conservatives-tackle-the-failed-liberal-welfare-state/ Reform conservatives tackle the failed liberal welfare state], [[Washington Post]]</ref> The liberal ideology has degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. All liberals support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles, while lacking an actual ideology or values of their own.<ref>http://eaglerising.com/22901/liberal-crybabies-get-offended-by-caitlyn-jenner-costume/</ref> [[Secular left|Many of them]] cannot understand Christian language.<ref>Williams, Thomas D., Ph.D. (December 26, 2016). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/26/religiously-ignorant-liberals-mistake-new-king-at-christmas-for-donald-trump/ Religiously-Ignorant Liberals Mistake ‘New King’ at Christmas for Donald Trump]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref>

Polling data has consistently shown that an increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.<ref>[http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/25/winds-of-political-change-havent-shifted-publics-ideology-balance/ Winds of Political Change Haven’t Shifted Public’s Ideology Balance]</ref> However, liberals and "progressives" oftentimes falsely say the exact opposite.

'''Liberals support the following political positions and practices''':<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2014/02/21/liberal-students-have-a-funny-definition-of-diversity-n1798157</ref>

* Wasting money on ineffective government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Denial of science<ref>[http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/09/why-do-liberals-hate-science/ Why Do Liberals Hate Science?]</ref> (especially [[creation science]])
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref name=studentNews>[http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs]</ref>
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy|Hypocrisy]]<ref>http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002849963/3038298682_real_verse_liberal_hypocrisy_xlarge.png</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref name=studentNews />
* Brainwashing voters with propaganda
* [[Liberal hedonism|Hedonism]]
* Taxpayer-funded and state-encouraged [[abortion]]
* Rejection of Biblical standards
* [[Hate|Hatred]]<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_hate_speech]</ref>
* [[Murder]] (through abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia)
* Censorship<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/07/watch-what-you-say-the-new-liberal-power-elite-won-t-tolerate-dissent.html Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won’t Tolerate Dissent], [[The Daily Beast]]</ref>
* Socialism<ref>[http://famguardian.org/subjects/Politics/Articles/Liberals.htm 60 Hard Truths about "Liberals"]</ref>
* Unsuccessful Keynesian economics as opposed to sound free market economics
* Crying instead of accepting reality<ref>http://liberaltears.net/</ref>
* Cessation of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
* Ending Western morality<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/07/13/5_ways_liberalism_destroys_virtue]</ref>
* [[Gun control]]
* [[Tyranny]]<ref>http://www.history.com/topics/british-history/george-iii</ref>
* [[Treason]]<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/mikes-blog-round-25</ref>
* [[Elitism]]<ref>https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130604122602AANvhvF</ref>
* Pseudo-intellectualism<ref>[http://eljam.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-hate-pseudo-intellectuals.html I hate pseudo-intellectuals]</ref>
* Affirmative action<ref name=studentNews />
* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by '''liberal''' Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Authoritarian government<ref>[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/07/liberal_authori.html Liberal Authoritarianism]</ref>
* [[Genocide]]<ref>http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020512.html</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* [[Liberal Fascism|Fascism]]
* [[evolution and liberalism|Belief in evolution]]
* Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
* Destroying conservative family values and replacing them with immoral [[Hollywood values]], such as abortion
* Brainwashing through government-censored [[public education]]
* Limiting personal freedom.<ref>[http://conservative.wikia.com/wiki/Democratic_Party Democratic Party]</ref> Liberal support for gun control is an example of this.
* High progressive taxes<ref>[http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/157256-course-lower-state-taxes-helps-growth-studys-results-prove/ This Nationwide Study Challenges Everything Liberals Have Told You About Raising Taxes]</ref> as a form of class warfare against wealthy business owners.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Progressive_taxation Progressive taxation]</ref>
* Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Slowly eroding the U.S. through [[Progressivism]].<ref>[http://americanprogressivism.wordpress.com/ What Is Progressivism?]</ref>
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] and homosexual adoption
* Failed [[tax and spend]] economics
* Smearing<ref>http://www.truthnation.com/trumps-slogan-is-a-throwback-to-reagan-and-liberals-are-furious-make-america-great-again/</ref>
* Libertine sexual morality. See: [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]
* Economic sector regulations<ref name=studentNews />
* Denial of conservative roles in history. For example, liberals frequently claim<ref>[http://www.deism.com/washington.htm George Washington and Deism]</ref> that George Washington was a deist when he was actually a devout Episcopalian.
* Corruption<ref>http://www.infowars.com/correction-liberals-not-conservatives-are-psychotic</ref>
* Spreading of [[political correctness]]
* [[Sadism]]<ref>http://catholiccitizens.org/views/66534/uses-disgust-%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8/</ref>
* Government mass-surveillance
* Non-syndicalist [[labor union]]s
* Racism<ref>http://mrconservative.com/2013/03/9062-25-examples-of-liberal-racism-in-quotes/7/</ref>
* Advocating incorrect policies <ref>[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/liberals-smug-condescending]</ref>
* Encouraging promiscuity and immorality through sexual education rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Slander<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Slander-Liberal-About-American-Right/dp/1400049520</ref>
* Gender Equality
* [[Obesity]]<ref>http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/rosie-odonnell-said-she-will-leave-america-youll-love-the-reason/</ref>
* [[Anti-Americanism]]
* Bestiality as a human right<ref>[http://www.peterheck.com/libtree/liberty_tree/view/1677/liberals_repeal_ban_on_bestiality_in_the_military Liberals Repeal Ban on Bestiality in the Military]</ref>
* Abolition of the [[death penalty]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Pedophilia<ref>[http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/liberals-hard-pressed-make-pedophilia-legal-get-ready-sharia-law/]</ref>
* Unconstitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstatement of the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* Welfare
* Stalinism
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* [[China and involuntary organ harvesting|Mutilating corpses]]<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Killings-Harvesting-Solution-Dissident/dp/161614940X?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0</ref>
* Oppression of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
* Enforced homosexuality<ref>http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/weve-gone-from-tolerance-of-homosexuality-to-forced-celebration-of-it.html/</ref>
* Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
* [[Liberal Denial|Denial]] of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Robbery and other forms of crime (see [[Gun control]])
* Support of financially irresponsible policies
* [[Slavery]]<ref>http://russp.us/racism.htm</ref>
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]
* Rejection of logical<ref>[http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140711/OPINION/140719804/2011/OPINION Liberals are illogical, and good at it]</ref> standards
Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00 Noun S: (n) liberal]</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal liberal]</ref> In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," "elitist," or "bad."

==Liberals and uncharitableness==

''See also'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]
[[File:Beggar.jpg|thumb|right|240px|[[United States|American]] liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref name=georgeWill>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html Conservatives More Liberal Givers], [[RealClearPolitics]]</ref> ]]
In March 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref name=georgeWill />}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]]. Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians]</ref>

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1 Charity Donations and Liberal Hypocrisy]</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

==Liberals and superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]

''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]].<ref name=irrational>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html Look Who's Irrational Now]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref name=irrational />}}

== Secular left ==

''See also:'' [[Secular left]]

The [[secular left]] consists of [[leftist|left]]-wing secularists who are able to exert their influence in many countries. They support "strict government [[secularism]]".<ref>http://www.secularleft.us/about</ref>

=== Decline of the secular left ===

''See also:'' [[Decline of the secular left]]

In some regions where the secular left has considerable influence, they [[Decline of the secular left|are losing]] an increasing amount of their power.

== Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity ==

''See also:'' [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity]]

According to a 2007 study reported in the ''Journal of Family Issues'', adherents of [[liberal Christianity]] are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]].<ref>[http://www.sagepub.com/hillhsstudy/articles/Chapter10_Article%2001.pdf Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?]</ref>

As noted above, liberals are [[Evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to adhere to evolutionary belief than conservatives. A study conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=[[Media Research Center]]}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go.<ref>[http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm How the House voted]</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>[http://www.alde.eu Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament]</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>[http://www.liberal-international.org/ World Federation of Liberalism]</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/ Liberal Party of Australia]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal]]s. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org Party of European Socialism]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>[http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation], '''PDF''', "Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey</ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See [[Classical Liberal]]ism. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Notable liberal "intellects" ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

* [[King George III]]

* [[Barack Hussein Obama]]<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/cheney-obama-is-the-worst-president-of-my-lifetime-2014-7 CHENEY: Obama Is 'The Worst President Of My Lifetime']</ref>

* [[John Maynard Keynes]]

* [[Vlad III Tepes|Dracula]]

* [[David Thorstad]],<ref>http://hunterbear.org/shooting_lupus.htm</ref> a founding member of NAMBLA.

* [[Al Gore]]

* [[Adolf Hitler]]<ref>http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/</ref>

* [[Karl Marx]]

* [[Lee Harvey Oswald]]

* [[Che Guevara]]

* [[Francisco Franco]]

* [[Kim Jong-un]]

* [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]

* [[Mao Zedong]]

* [[Benito Mussolini]]

* [[Albert Einstein]]

* [[Pol Pot]]

* [[Margaret Thatcher]] - Conservative by UK standards, but decriminalized homosexuality.

* [[Joseph Stalin]]

*[[Bill Nye]]

* [[Attila the Hun]]

* [[Osama bin Laden]]

* [[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]]<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=YDyGCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT129 John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster], Transcript</ref> and "very liberal".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=YDyGCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20 John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster], Transcript</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>[http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527 Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg]</ref>

==Liberal Organizations of thought==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
•[[Southern Poverty Law Center]]
•[[Nazi Party]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." -[[Ronald Reagan]]

“Liberals see racism where it doesn't exist, fabricate it when they can't find it and ignore it within their own ranks.” ―[[Michelle Malkin]]

"Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago." -[[Ann Coulter]]<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/11/23/the_25_best_quotes_about_liberals The 25 Best Quotes About Liberals]</ref>

"The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites." -Ann Coulter

"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder." -[[Ann Coulter]]

"Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don't like to have another point of view in the room that they don't squash and the way they try to squash it is by character assassination and name calling." -David Horowitz

"End results that work that don't involve government threaten liberals." -[[Rush Limbaugh]]

==Quotes by Liberals==
"The number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S." -[[Joe Biden]]

"There is no reason the nation of Africa cannot, and should not, join the ranks of the worlds most prosperous nations." -Joe Biden<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/StupidStuffDemocratsSay Stupid Stuff Democrats Say]</ref>

"Romney wants to give EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION BILLION in tax breaks to the rich." -Joe Biden

"Will the Mars Rover be able to show the flag the astronauts planted there before?" -Sheila Jackson Lee

"Isn't it a little racist to call it Black Friday?" -Joy Behar

"Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? …I know what this [Republican] party is capable of." -Joy Behar

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." -[[Al Gore]]

"The center of the earth is about a million degrees." -Al Gore

"A zebra does not change its spots." -Al Gore

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." -[[Jeremiah Wright]]

"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs." -[[Nancy Pelosi]]

"My favorite word, that is really easy, my favorite word is 'the word'." -Nancy Pelosi

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” -Nancy Pelosi

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" -[[Barack Hussein Obama]]

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." -[[Barack Hussein Obama]]

"Welcome to Cinco de Quattro!" -Barack Obama

"The time has changed for come." -Barack Obama

"They support democratic institutions in Kyrzakhstan" -John Kerry

"My fear is that the whole island (of Guam) will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." -Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/17/the-25-stupidest-liberal-quotes-of-the-last-decade-n1666619 The 25 Stupidest Liberal Quotes Of The Last Decade]</ref>

"Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security." -Obama foreign policy adviser Richard Danzig

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate." -Former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry<ref>http://conservative.wikia.com/wiki/Hilarious_Liberal_Quotes</ref>

"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?" -Marion Barry

"My appetite is so good that I can eat the table cloth right off the chair." -Democratic Congressman Joe Moakley

"Those who died in the earthquake, their lives will never be the same again." -Barbara Boxer

"I dare you, you little fruitcake!" -Democratic Congressman Pete Stark

"I root for hurricanes" -James Wolcott

"I've got a secret for you: Kiss my a**." -George McGovern

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -[[Norman Thomas]], six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America<ref>http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1</ref>

== Modern liberalism and the use of mockery rather than reasonable argumentation ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]

In a ''BloombergView'' article, Stephen L. Carter wrote about modern liberalism:
{{Cquote|But the left has work to do, not only on policy and organization but also on attitude. Too many of my [[progressivism|progressive]] friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ -- and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall.<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-11/trump-and-the-fall-of-liberalism Trump and the Fall of Liberalism] by Stephen L. Carter, BloombergView</ref>}}

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==See also==
{|background="none" width="100%" border="0"
|valign="top"|
* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
|valign="top"|
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
|valign="top"|
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]
* [[European Liberalism]]
* [[Liberal and conservative]]
* [[Liberal anger]]
* [[Liberal competitiveness]]
* [[Liberal concealment]]
* [[Liberal conscience]]
* [[Liberal dislikes]]
* [[Liberal excuses]]
* [[Liberal fear]]
* [[Liberal gossip]]
* [[Liberal guilt]]
* [[Liberal confusion]]
* [[Liberal hedonism]]
|valign="top"|
* [[Liberal hyperbole]]
* [[Liberal infiltration]]
* [[Liberal media hype]]
* [[Liberal opinion]]
* [[Liberal relativism]]
* [[Liberal revisionists]]
* [[Liberal self-righteousness]]
* [[Liberalism-ism]]
* [[Liberals and conservatives]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intelligence]]
* [[Essay:Incoherence of liberal thought]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Predictions of the Decade]]
|}

==Further Information==
* [[Best New Conservative Words#New Liberal Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

User:Northwest

2017-02-09T00:34:49Z

ChristianAdvocate:

"blatant liberal opinions… not welcome here" –Northwest 2017

Obama's Religion

2017-02-09T00:33:23Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "Obama ain't Muslim, idiots."

Obama ain't Muslim, idiots.

Ex-homosexuals

2017-02-09T00:32:33Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "kys"

kys

User:Northwest

2017-02-09T00:31:59Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "kys"

kys

Donald Trump

2017-02-09T00:30:35Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "FUCK TRUMP"

FUCK TRUMP

God

2017-02-09T00:29:51Z

ChristianAdvocate: Undo revision 1305931 by Northwest (talk)

'''GOD IS NOT REAL'''

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2017-02-09T00:28:58Z

ChristianAdvocate: Undo revision 1305927 by Northwest (talk)

science

God

2017-02-09T00:28:21Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "'''GOD IS NOT REAL'''"

'''GOD IS NOT REAL'''

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2017-02-09T00:26:37Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "science"

science

Donald Trump

2017-02-09T00:25:51Z

ChristianAdvocate:

{{Officeholder
|name=Donald J. Trump
|image=Donald Trump official photo.jpg
|party=[[Republican]] (formerly [[Democrat]] and [[Reform Party|Reform]])
|spouse=Melania Trump
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices={{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=45th
|terms=January 20, 2017-Present
|vp=[[Mike Pence]]
|preceded=[[Barack Obama]]
|former=n
}}
}}
:''For his achievements as President-elect and President, see [[Donald Trump achievements]].''
:''100 groups have signed [http://www.pseagles.com/Coalition_letter_Supreme_Court this coalition letter] re: Trump's [[Trump Supreme Court|nomination to the Supreme Court]].''
'''Donald J. Trump''' (b. [[Queens]], [[New York]], on June 14, 1946), nicknamed "The Donald," is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, outspoken politician, and [[television]] personality. He is the legitimately-elected and fully-qualified dictator of the United States as a result of winning the [[2016 presidential election]] as the [[Republican]] nominee.

==Financial worth & education==
Trump has engaged in many financial pursuits and estimated that his net worth was $10 billion, as of July 2015.<ref>LoGiurato, Brett (July 25, 2015). [http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-net-worth-2015-7 "We finally know a lot more about Donald Trump's 'massive' net worth"]. Business Insider website.</ref> Forbes, however, estimates his net worth is $3.7 billion as of November 2016.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ Profile: Donald Trump] Forbes.com, Nov. 2016</ref> He graduated from the New York Military Academy in 1964 and first attended college at [[Fordham University]] for two years before transferring to the more competitive [[University of Pennsylvania]] and completing his studies at its prestigious Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

Early media profiles of Trump claim he graduated "first in his class" from Wharton.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/28/archives/a-builder-looks-backand-moves-forward-builder-looks-back-but-moves.html A Builder Looks Back - And Moves Forward] New York Times - Jan. 28, 1973</ref> The evidence suggests otherwise and yet Trump has never sought to correct or clarify this potentially significant error.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/08/magazine/the-expanding-empire-of-donald-trump.html THE EXPANDING EMPIRE OF DONALD TRUMP] New York Times Magazine - April 8, 1984</ref>

==Candidacy==
On June 16, 2015, he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the [[2016 presidential election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/16/trump-announces-white-house-bid-joins-crowded-gop-field/ "Trump announces White House bid, joins crowded GOP field"] (June 16, 2015). Fox News website/Politics. The front-runner in a record-breaking field of 17 [[Republican]] candidates, Trump announced that he did not anticipate "throwing punches" against his rivals in the first GOP debate. Chiacu, Donna and Torbati, Yeganeh (August 2, 2015). [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/02/us-usa-election-debate-idUSKCN0Q70NI20150802 "Trump says won't be 'throwing punches' in U.S. Republican debate"]. But at the debate the [[Fox News Channel]]—particularly its [[feminist]] non-journalist [[Megyn Kelly]]—ambushed Trump with out-of-context quotations designed to smear him as somehow being anti-women. This ignited a national controversy that lasted for days, and Trump called upon Kelly to apologize, which she refused to do.</ref> Unlike most other U.S presidential candidates, Trump sharply criticizes the media and talks about issues that no elected official dares touch. For example, Trump stands up against [[feminists]], unlike most politicians. In another example, in 2011 Trump persistently doubted whether [[Barack Obama]] had been born in the [[United States]], which caused Obama's approval ratings to drop below 40% until Obama finally caved in to Trump and produced what Obama claimed was his birth certificate. Trump then scoffed at Obama's conduct.

'''''In February 2011, Trump announced that he is [[pro-life]], and at the final presidential debate on Oct. 19, 2016, Trump gave the strongest endorsement of the pro-life position of any presidential nominee in history'''''.

Trump's central campaign theme has been to oppose [[illegal immigration]] and [[free trade]], and nominated Senator [[Jeff Sessions]] as [[Attorney General]] to enforce standing legislation on the issue. As reported by [[Breitbart News Network|Breitbart]], "Sen. Sessions, Chairman of the Senate’s Immigration Subcommittee, is widely regarded as the gold standard on immigration. Sessions has also become the intellectual thought leader in the Republican Party on appealing to the blue collar voters who have been abandoned by their political leaders." <ref>Hahn, Julia (August 14, 2015). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/14/game-change-trump-consults-with-sen-jeff-sessions-on-immigration-strategy/ "Game change: Trump consults with Sen Jeff Sessions on immigration strategy"]. Breitbart website/Big government.</ref> In the later campaign Trump focused more on [[ISIS]] and terrorism.

At the final presidential debate between [[Hillary Clinton]] and Trump on October 19, 2016, Clinton chastised Trump for running a newspaper advertisement in 1987 critical of the [[Reagan Administration]]. But Trump persuasively explained that he has always disagreed with Reagan's support of free trade, as many other [[conservatives]] disagree with Reagan on this issue.

==Religious beliefs==
:''Main article: [[Donald Trump's religious views]]
Donald Trump attended the First [[Presbyterian]] Church in Jamaica, [[Queens]]. He told the [[Christian Broadcasting Network]] that he still considers himself a [[Presbyterian]] and attends services for all major holidays and Sundays, and that "The [[Bible]] is certainly THE book." He receives Bibles from fans in the mail, and he either stores them or gives them away to others.<ref>Haberman, Maggie (April 11, 2011). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52942.html "Donald Trump talks about religion"]. Politico website.</ref> When pressed to name his favorite Bible verse, however, he opted for "an eye for an eye" ([[Exodus 21-26 (Translated)#Chapter 21|Exodus 21:24]]), one of the few Mosaic Law verses specifically repudiated by [[Jesus]] in the [[Sermon on the Mount]].<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/eye-for-an-eye-turn-the-other-cheek-donald-trump-favorite-verse-bible-evangelical-theologians-162076/ 'Eye For an Eye' or 'Turn the Other Cheek'? Donald Trump's Favorite Verse Shows His Ignorance About the Bible, Evangelical Theologians Say] Christian Post</ref> Trump stated several times during his presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016 that he has not asked God for forgiveness and that he does not need His forgiveness, showing that when Trump made those statements, he was not saved.<ref>Gass, Nick (June 8, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-forgiveness-god-224068 Trump: I hope I don't have to ask 'for much forgiveness' from God]. ''Politico''. Retrieved December 4, 2016.</ref><ref>Scott, Eugene (July 18, 2015). [http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/ Trump believes in God, but hasn't sought forgiveness]. ''CNN''. Retrieved December 4, 2016.</ref><ref>Tani, Maxwell (January 17, 2016). [http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-on-god-i-dont-like-to-have-to-ask-for-forgiveness-2016-1 Trump on God: 'I don't like to have to ask for forgiveness']. ''Business Insider''. Retrieved December 4, 2016.</ref>

==Career==
[[File:Trump business.jpg|right]]
Donald Trump began his career at Trump Organization. In his college years, he helped revitalize one of his father's failing real estate ventures. Trump began opening hotels and casinos, which provided him with the cash flow to engage in other ventures. He owns the world-famous Trump Tower and is the founder of the publicly traded Trump Hotel Casinos & Resorts. Trump also owns the Trump brand, which sells a variety of items, such as bottled water, steak, and even mortgages. Trump has authored a number of books and weathered changing business fortunes, but despite the challenges that he has encountered, he has continued to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur.

Trump considered [[presidential election 2012|running for President in 2012]] as a [[Republican]]. He, among others, questioned the citizenship of [[Barack Obama]], citing his failure to produce his birth certificate. After Obama produced his birth certificate, Trump and the other [[birther]]s continue to doubt its authenticity. Obama's approval ratings were around 40% during the peak of the controversy. Trump later exited the race, and gave the customary endorsement to [[Mitt Romney]] as the other [[Republican]] contenders did.

==Major properties==

*Trump World Tower: 845 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY.

*Trump Tower: 725 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10022 Personal Residence

*Bank of America Center (San Francisco)

*The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street

*Trump Park Avenue

*AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY

*Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago

*Trump International Hotel & Casino Las Vegas

*Mar-A-Lago Palm Beach

*Four golf courses in the U.S.

==Media==
[[File:Donald Trump star.JPG|thumbnail|left|Hollywood Walk of Fame]]
In 2003 Trump began as the host and executive producer of the reality [[television]] show ''The Apprentice'' and ''The Celebrity Apprentice'', where contestants compete for a position in Trump's organization. On this show, Trump popularized his catchphrase "You're fired!"

Trump used to own the un-Christian Miss Universe Pageant, which objectified the female body and promoted lust and infidelity. Controversy arose when one of the winners, Tara Conner, was caught breaking pageant rules by drinking and other activities. Trump gave her a second chance after personally speaking with her and allowed her to retain her crown as she attended rehabilitation. For several weeks after this, [[Rosie O'Donnell]] berated Trump for his decision on ''The View''. A bitter media war ensued with the two exchanging insults.

Trump has made many guest appearances, usually as himself, on many TV shows and in several movies.

Childish [[liberals]] are vandalizing Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame three times a day. A person asked about the vandalism said Trump has it coming.<ref>[http://video.breitbart.com/?ndn.trackingGroup=90085&ndn.siteSection=breitbart2slider_nws_us_sec&ndn.videoId=30599129&freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart2slider_nws_us_sec&vid=30599129 Trump Walk of Fame Star vandalized daily]</ref>

==Political positions==

====Social Issues====
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, Trump announced he is [[pro-life]].<ref>Rahn, Will (February 10, 2011). [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/trump-at-cpac-points-to-white-house-run/ "Trump at CPAC points to White House run"]. The Daily Caller website.</ref> Trump would not fund Planned Parenthood and the government should not give funds to any organizations that perform abortions<ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/01/ted-cruz/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-planned-parenthood/</ref> However, he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/01/mike-huckabee-defends-donald-trumps-abortion-conversion-he-is-pro-life-now/</ref>

Trump says that the legalization of [[same-sex "marriage"]] doesn't matter because it's "settled law" now,<ref>http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_We/#Item3</ref> even though five liberal members of the Supreme Court illegally made ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' into "law" via [[judicial activism]] based on their personal feelings about the issue. Trump believes that homosexual couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/how-donald-trump-is-slowly-teaching-republicans-to-embrace-gay-rights/</ref> Despite what the Left claims, Donald Trump has voiced open support the LGBTQ community, and was the first Republican President to do so.{{cn}} He has stated that he will do everything he can do to protect the LGBTQ community, from Islamic extremists.

Trump says that a business should be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?<ref name="christiantoday.com">http://www.christiantoday.com/article/donald.trump.vows.to.be.the.greatest.representative.of.christians.if.he.wins.white.house/55023.htm</ref> Trump would not require health insurance providers to offer free birth control.<ref>http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-11/obama-birth-control-cpac/53046728/1</ref>

Trump doesn't think that universities should provide “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” for students.<ref>http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/11/10/safe-spaces-handed-election-donald-trump/</ref>

Trump believes that marital rape be classified and punished as severely as non-marital rape?<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/donald-trump-adviser-michael-cohen-rape/</ref>

Trump would not add "Gender Identity" to anti-discrimination laws.<ref>http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/5/24/donald-trump-claims-accommodating-transgender-people-too-expensive</ref>

Trump wouldn't support a [[separation of church and state]] by removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments.<ref name="christiantoday.com"/>

Trump says that after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice, terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via [[assisted suicide]].<ref>http://wingspanonline.net/?p=2398</ref>

Trump supports the [[death penalty]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/01/nyregion/angered-by-attack-trump-urges-return-of-the-death-penalty.html</ref>

Trump thinks that the military should allow women to serve as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-trump-women-combat-tricky/2015/12/06/id/704736/</ref> (Compare [[gender norming]].)

Trump says that board members of a business should be the most qualified regardless of gender.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3269718/Trump-gives-young-feminist-brush-equal-pay-abortion-going-make-good-job-happen-pro-life.html</ref>

Trump does not believe that the government can show a confederate flag on public property.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-tees-off-on-the-confederate-flag/</ref>

Trump believes that women should be allowed to wear a Niqāb, or face veil, to civic ceremonies.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFVCZhFsNR8</ref>

====Healthcare Issues====
Trump does not support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and would open the markets so insurers can compete across state lines and reduce costs.<ref name="donaldjtrump.com">https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform</ref><ref name=Educ>Breitbart.tv (February 9, 2011). [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2011/02/09/pro-life-donald-trump-would-eliminate-dept-of-education-impose-25-tax-on-china-imports-if-president/ "Pro-life Donald Trump would eliminate Dept of Education, impose 25% tax on China imports if president"]. Breitbart.com.</ref> However, he has also said, "I like the mandate."<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/19/trump-on-obamacare-i-like-the-mandate-video/ "Trump On Obamacare: ‘I Like The Mandate’"]</ref>

Trump thinks that the government should regulate the prices of life-saving drugs.<ref>http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-backs-
medicare-negotiating-drug-prices-218215</ref>

Trump supports the legalization of marijuana for medical use.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/06/18/exclusive-donald-trump-on-what-made-him-run-for-president-on-hannity/</ref>

''Donald Trump has not yet answered if he supports the privatization of veteran's healthcare.''

Trump believes that the federal government increase funding of health care for low income individuals (Medicaid).<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-calls-for-expanded-medicaid-birth-control-without-doctor</ref>

====Controversy with Barack Obama====
[[File:Donald Trump Speaking in Fountain Hills.jpg|thumb|Trump speaking in Fountain Hills, Arizona in March 2016.]]
Trump has also questioned Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President, in light of the ongoing questions surrounding his birth certificate.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280533 "Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past"] (March 28, 2011). WorldNetDaily website.</ref> Trump questioned whether the Obama Administration was successful in negotiating with foreign countries. Trump declared during the 2016 election that he no longer would question Obama's eligibility.

====Economic Issues====

Trump’s economic plan is designed to make the country more competitive by implementing policies that apply to all companies: cutting taxes, including the corporate tax rate, repealing and rolling back stifling regulations, including the biggest of them all, Obamacare and those clobbering the energy sector, renegotiating trade deals such as NAFTA, and killing off the nascent Trans-Pacific Partnership.<ref>Crowley, Monica (December 7, 2016). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/7/donald-trump-and-the-art-of-getting-it-done/ Donald Trump and the art of getting it done]. ''The Washingon Times''. Retrieved December 10, 2016.</ref>

Trump would not require employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job as there are too many other variables such as education, experience, and tenure that determine a fair salary.

''Trump has not answered whether welfare recipients be tested for drugs.''

Trump said he would require businesses be required to provide paid leave for full-time employees during the birth of a child or sick family member.

Trump would raise the federal minimum wage.

Trump believes there should be more restrictions on current welfare benefits.

Trump would instate a 35% tariff on all imports from China even though he used Chinese steel to build all of his Trump Towers.<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717</ref>

Trump would also lower the corporate tax rate.<ref>https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-economic-plan-winning-the-global-competition</ref>

Trump says that the U.S. shouldn't continue to participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/news/economy/donald-trump-nafta-mexico-china-tariff/</ref>

Trump would cut public spending in order to reduce the public debt.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/donald-trump-believe-candidate-stands-10-issues/</ref>

Trump believes that the government is currently over-regulating private businesses and that it shouldn't require businesses to pay salaried employees, making up to $46k/year, time-and-a-half for overtime hours.<ref>http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-shift/2016/08/trump-v-overtime-rule-215883</ref>

Trump thinks that the government should prevent “mega mergers” of corporations that could potentially control a large percentage of market share within its industry.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-22/trump-would-block-proposed-at-t-time-warner-merger-if-elected</ref>

Trump said that labor unions, in theory help the economy but have recently become corrupt and should have their powers limited.<ref>http://projects.newsday.com/opinion/newsday-editorial-board-interviews-donald-trump/#nypd</ref>

Trump would increase the tax on profits from the sale of stocks, bonds, and real estate.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4I5QUGRf-Q&feature=youtu.be</ref>

Trump believes economic stimulus will aid the country during times of recession.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/trump-clinton-infrastructure.html?_r=0</ref>

Trump thinks the Federal Reserve Bank should be audited by Congress.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-fed-idUSL1N12Y1ZG20151103</ref>

Trump doesn't support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as this will incentivize companies to move U.S. jobs overseas.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/transcript-of-the-republican-presidential-debate-in-new-hampshire.html</ref>

Trump would eliminate the estate tax.<ref>http://thehill.com/policy/finance/290825-clinton-to-criticize-trumps-plan-to-repeal-the-estate-tax</ref>

Trump would end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course.<ref>http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/17cfa1a0-0b9e-11e5-a06e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3e0UlsdmX</ref>

''Trump has not answered if pension payments be increased for retired government workers.''

Trump favors an increased sales tax in order to reduce property taxes even though sales tax would not provide a steady stream of income.<ref>http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/06/donald_trumps_regressive_and_r.php#.VYr8_hNViko</ref>

Trump supports pension plans for federal, state, and local government workers be transitioned into privately managed accounts.<ref name="donaldjtrump.com"/>

Trump said that the U.S. government should not bailout Puerto Rico.<ref>http://mms.tveyes.com/PlaybackPortal.aspx?SavedEditID=c89b639c-07de-4a0f-a634-dda08e3de95a</ref>

Trump believes citizens should not be allowed to save or invest their money in offshore bank accounts as too many wealthy citizens are abusing loopholes in offshore banking laws to evade taxes.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-puts-his-money-in-companies-that-stash-cash-abroad/</ref>

Trump would not apply an in-state sales tax apply to online purchases of in-state buyers from out-of-state sellers.<ref>http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ce65fe3f0bbd43c19cf17c5c8da8d958/trump-amazons-bezos-uses-washington-post-avoid-taxes</ref>

Trump thinks that the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency.<ref>https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/trump-presidency-boost-bitcoin-price/</ref>

====Department of Education====
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education.<ref name=Educ/>

====Foreign policy====
Trump wants to improve relationships with [[Russia]]n president [[Vladimir Putin]].<ref>Johnson, Simon (July 31, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11775145/Donald-Trump-Id-get-on-very-well-with-Putin-if-I-were-president.html "Donald Trump: I'd get on 'very well' with Putin if I were president"]. The Telegraph [U.K.] website.</ref>

Trump says the [[Iran]] deal is bad, but as president he would enforce it anyway.

After his election as U.S. president, [[Israel]]i prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] called Trump "a true friend of the State of Israel."<ref>[http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/netanyahu-trump-israel-true-friend-231094?lo=ap_c4 Netanyahu calls Trump 'a true friend' of Israel]. ''Politico''. November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 12, 2016.</ref> On February 2, 2017, however, Trump stated that building new settlements in the [[West Bank]] "may not be helpful" to achieving peace in the [[Middle East]], and he appeared to shift his formerly strong stance on moving the U.S. embassy to [[Jerusalem]] as he had previously stated.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/03/trump-to-israel-settlements-may-not-help-achieve-peace-in-middle-east.html Trump to Israel: Settlements ‘may not help’ achieve peace in the Middle East]. ''Fox News''. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 5, 2017.</ref>

====Global warming====
Trump does not believe in the [[Climate Change]] hysteria, once stating the "Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from [[Al Gore]]."

====Second Amendment rights====
Trump is strongly pro-[[Second Amendment]] and against [[leftist]] [[gun control]] and gun free zones. As president, Trump has promised to re-arm military personnel on all American military bases as well as [[ROTC]] recruitment centers, which were disarmed by the [[Clinton Administration]] policy.<ref name=Educ/> Trump was strongly endorsed by the [[National Rifle Association]] in one of its earliest endorsements in an election campaign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/20/nra-to-endorse-trump.html# Trump wins NRA endorsement, blasts Clinton on gun stance at forum]. ''Fox News''. May 20, 2016. Retrieved October 22, 2016.</ref>

====Homosexual agenda====
For all practical purposes, Trump seems to be on the side of the [[homosexual agenda]]. He supports the creation of new law by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], as in a new right to [[homosexual marriage]], and declares it the "law of the land" even though Congress passed no such law.

Trump has attended multiple [[same-sex marriage]] ceremonies, but has also said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage. Trump's views are not yet known on other aspects of the [[homosexual agenda]], such as whether Trump would ban [[conversion therapy]] for minors as [[Chris Christie]] did. The [[Fox News Channel]] debate in August avoided these issues, but future debates will probably require Trump to declare his position.

====Immigration====
See the discussion in the introduction above. This is Trump's main campaign issue.

A central part of his immigration plan is to build a giant wall on the border with Mexico. Trump estimates it will cost $8 billion, approximately 35 to 40 feet high and stretch 2000 miles.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/donald-trump-the-wall-is-probably-8-billion Trump Border Wall]</ref> During the campaign, Trump promised that Mexico will pay for the wall, but after taking office, he clarified that payment could be in the form of a tax on Mexican imports or other revenues measures after the Mexican government showed opposition towards Trump's plan.

Trump has also proposed to temporarily ban [[Muslims]] from entering the United States, until "our leaders figure out what the hell is going on," in order to protect Americans from the threats posed by [[Islamic]] [[refugee]]s (and those pretending to be<ref>[http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/isis-fighters-infiltrating-syrian-refugees-uk-is-warned/article/2572051 ISIS fighters infiltrating Syrian refugees, UK is warned]</ref>) entering the country.<ref>[http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/donald-trump-insists-muslim-ban-is-about-safety-not-religion Donald Trump Insists Muslim Ban Is About Safety, Not Religion]</ref>

Efforts have been made by hostile journalists to paint Trump as advocating a [[Muslim registry]], but what he actually proposed was a [[database for Syrian refugees]].

====Political contributions====
He has been criticized for his substantial contributions to [[Democrat]] lawmakers; the majority of those lawmakers are located in the states he resides in: New York and Florida. The amount he has donated since 2008 is $25,000, which is insignificant considering his wealth.<ref>Allin, Olivia (April 30, 2011). [http://www.ontheredcarpet.com/Donald-Trump-calls-nations-leaders-stupid-people-and-blood-sucking-politicians/8104644 "OTRC: Donald Trump calls nation's leaders 'stupid people' and 'blood-sucking politicians'"]. OnTheRedCarpet [news]. Retrieved from ABC7 [KABC Television, Los Angeles] website.</ref>

Trump is not known to be beholden to any big-money donors.

====Tariffs====
[[File:Donald Trump RNC July 2016.jpg|thumb|Trump accepting the GOP nomination in Cleveland on June 21, 2016.]]
At the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference, he stated that he supports a 25% tariff on Chinese goods.<ref name=Educ/> The number floated around in 2016 is a 45% tariff. Trump was speaking in regards to China and the [[World Trade Organization]],<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-finance-ministerlou-jiwei-takes-aim-at-donald-trumps-trade-policies-1460892988 Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei Takes Aim at Donald Trump’s Trade Policies, WallStreetJournal, April 17, 2016]</ref>

{{cquote|In a statement from his campaign, Mr. Trump charged that [[China]] was “in total violation of WTO regulations” and that the U.S. “has incompetently allowed them to get away with this” and has failed to impose “equal or greater taxes and tariffs” on China. If he is elected president, Mr. Trump said, China “will learn to deal fairly and justly or we will not deal at all” with Beijing.}}

====Vaccines====
Trump believes that [[vaccines]] cause [[autism]]<ref>Ferris, Sarah (September 16, 2015). [http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/253980-trump-links-vaccines-to-autism-epidemic "Trump links vaccines to autism 'epidemic'"]. The Hill website/Policy/Healthcare.</ref> and has argued against requiring that so many vaccines be given to infants.

==== Eminent domain====
Trump believes that the government has the right to take private property upon paying just compensation for both infrastructure and to promote economic development.

==== Supreme Court====
Trump opposed filling the Supreme Court seat held by [[Antonin Scalia]] before the next President takes office. When asked who he might select to the Supreme Court, he said that his sister, a sitting federal court judge, would make a great Supreme Court justice.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru|title=Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge|date=Aug 27, 2015|accessdate=February 21, 2016}}</ref>

==Hillary Clinton==
Trump had pledged, if elected president, to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate [[Hillary Clinton]]'s use of a private email server whilst Secretary of State, but Hillary took her crushing defeat so hard that Trump charitably softened his stance after winning.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-investigation.html Donald Trump Drops Threat of New Hillary Clinton Investigation] New York Times - Nov. 22, 2016</ref> A few of Trump supporters, such as [[Ann Coulter]] and [[Breitbart]], expressed disappointment but Trump rose in overall public approval.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ann-coulter-slams-trump-clinton/2016/11/22/id/760220/ Ann Coulter Slams Trump's Decision on Clinton] Newsmax.com - Nov. 22, 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/23/peter-schweizer-letting-hillary-off-hook-definition-rigged-system/ Peter Schweizer: Letting Hillary off the Hook Is ‘Definition of a Rigged System’] Breitbart.com - Nov. 23, 2016</ref>

==2016 presidential election==
[[File:Donald Trump (29273256122) Phoenix.jpg|thumb|250px|Donald Trump on August 31, 2016.]]
:''Main article: [[2016 U.S. presidential election]]''
===Path to the Nomination===
In the 2015 [[Value Voters Debate|Value Voters]] poll, Trump performed poorly, coming in fifth, indicating many [[Christian]] [[conservatives]] had not yet warmed up to him.<ref>Flores, Reena (September 26, 2015). [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-conservative-poll-donald-trump-could-not-win/ "The conservative poll Donald Trump could not win"]. CBSNews website.</ref> Trump is a big supporter of [[gambling]], which most Christians, other religious groups, and [[conservatives]] oppose. But by 2016 Trump was winning more support from [[evangelical]]s than any other Republican candidate.

Trump won the Republican primary, receiving more votes than any other Republican primary candidate in history.<ref>Hoft, Joe (June 7, 2016). [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/trump-trumps-wins-historic-race-record-fashion/ HISTORY! Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

===General election===
Trump faced former liberal Democrat Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] in the general election. Trump's campaign was vastly outspent, outraised, and out-staffed by Clinton's.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/10/more-with-less-trumps-lean-machine-beats-clintons-big-bank-account.html More With Less: Trump's lean machine beats Clinton's big bank account]. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> The [[mainstream media]] was extremely biased against and unfair towards Trump.<ref>Kurtz, Howard (November 11, 2016). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/11/media-remain-hostile-to-donald-trump-even-as-some-pundits-admit-blew-it.html Media remain hostile to Donald Trump even as some pundits admit they blew it]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Media-Bias-to-the-Extreme/39285014073786148.html Media Bias to the Extreme]. ''BillOReilly.com''. November 11, 2016. Retrieved November 12, 2016.</ref>

It was widely expected that Clinton would easily win the election, and the elite pollsters and "political insiders" all predicted a massive Clinton victory.<ref>Vogel, Kenneth P. & Isenstadt, Alex (November 9, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036 How did everyone get it so wrong?]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Catanese, David (October 24, 2016). [http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-10-24/republicans-last-hope-the-polls-are-wrong Republicans’ Last Hope: The Polls Are Wrong]. ''U.S. News & World Report''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> At least once, when a poll was released that actually showed Trump leading, Clinton's campaign dismissed it as "bad polling".<ref>Nelson, Louis (November 1, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-campaign-bad-poll-abc-washington-post-230591 Clinton camp on new survey showing Trump ahead: It’s ‘bad polling’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> Instead, Trump won the election in a massive, historical upset, winning even states such as [[Pennsylvania]], [[Michigan]], and [[Wisconsin]], which a Republican had not won for 20–30 years.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/08/first-polls-close-in-2016-race-trump-projected-to-win-ind-ky-clinton-wins-vt.html Trump wins presidency, defeats Clinton in historic election upset]. ''Fox News''. November 8, 2016. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref><ref>Blake, Aaron (November 9, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/ Donald Trump just blew up the electoral map]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> The polling and predictions were off dramatically.<ref>Flint, Joe & Alpert, Lukas I. (November 9, 2016). [http://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-polling-in-hand-media-misses-mark-badly-with-election-predictions-1478710860 How the Media’s Election Predictions Badly Missed the Mark]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> Trump's election victory was described by ''[[Politico]]'' as "the most stunning upset in American history."<ref>Goldmacher, Shane & Schreckinger, Ben (November 9, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/election-results-2016-clinton-trump-231070?lo=ap_c1 Trump pulls off biggest upset in U.S. history]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref>

While the GOP increased its vote share across the entire nation, Trump made the largest gains in the rural [[Midwest]] and [[Rust Belt]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/how-trump-pushed-the-election-map-to-the-right.html How Trump Reshaped the Election Map]. ''The New York Times''. November 9, 2016. Retrieved November 12, 2016.</ref> Although Clinton won the popular vote 65,515,369 (48.05%) to 62,853,327 (46.09%), according to unofficial results, the large vote totals came from states which have resisted voter identification reforms.<ref>[http://www.inquisitr.com/3719036/3-million-illegal-immigrants-voted-gregg-phillips-votestand-donald-trump-final-popular-vote-count-2016-predictions/ 3 Million Illegal Immigrants Voted, Claims Gregg Phillips Of VoteStand: Donald Trump’s Final Popular Vote Count Alleged To Be Better Than 2016 Predictions], Patrick Frye, ''The Inquisitr'', November 15, 2016</ref> Trump won the [[electoral college]] vote, 306 to 232, with the incomplete vote count reported.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/election/results|title=Election Results|accessdate=Nov. 12, 2016}}</ref> Trump won more votes in the general election than any Republican candidate in U.S. history, and he won the largest number of electoral votes since [[George H. W. Bush]].<ref>Hoft, Jim (November 22, 2016). [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/trump-breaks-record-votes-republican-candidate-history/ Trump Breaks Record for Most Votes by Republican Candidate in History]. ''The Gateway Pundit''. Retrieved November 22, 2016.</ref> In addition, Trump won 2,623 counties—the largest number for both a Republican or Democrat since [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1984—while the Democrats won only 489, something even the liberal [[PolitiFact]] admitted to be true.<ref>Jacobson, Louis (December 4, 2016). [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/04/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-donald-trump-won-most-counties-rep/ Mike Pence says Donald Trump won most counties by a Republican since Ronald Reagan]. ''PolitiFact''. Retrieved December 4, 2016.</ref> Geographically speaking, Trump accordingly won 85 percent of the nation<ref>Wallace, Tim (November 16, 2016). [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0 The Two Americas of 2016]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved December 5, 2016.</ref> and 61 percent of the states (including Maine's 2nd district). With the historic flip of Elliott County, Kentucky, every rural, white-majority Southern county voted for the Republican nominee for the first time in history.<ref>Simon, Jeff (December 9, 2016). [http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/elliott-county-kentucky-democratic-streak-broken-by-donald-trump/index.html How Trump ended Democrats' 144-year winning streak in one county]. ''CNN''. Retrieved January 15, 2017.</ref>

According to exit polling, Trump won 81 percent of evangelical Christians compared to 16 percent for Clinton, a record high and even more than [[George W. Bush]] won in 2004,<ref>O'Brien, Cortney (November 12, 2016). [http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/11/12/white-evangelical-voters-showed-up-this-time-n2243931 Evangelical Voters Showed Up Big Time For Trump]. ''Townhall''. Retrieved December 8, 2016.</ref><ref>Lovett, Ian (November 9, 2016). [http://www.wsj.com/articles/evangelicals-back-donald-trump-in-record-numbers-despite-earlier-doubts-1478689372 Evangelicals Back Donald Trump in Record Numbers, Despite Earlier Doubts]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved December 8, 2016.</ref> even though some have disputed the accuracy of such exit polling methods.<ref>Showalter, Brandon (November 16, 2016). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/81-percent-evangelicals-vote-trump-eric-teetsel-joe-carter-171542/ Did 81 Percent of Evangelicals Really Vote for Trump? Not So Fast, Some Say]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved December 8, 2016.</ref> This is largely due to Trump's conservative policies that align well with the Bible, including opposition to abortion.

While liberal, establishmentarian world leaders made generally nuanced statements in response to Trump's election upset, conservative, right-wing leaders, including the leaders of insurgent parties in European nations, reacted positively to Trump's election.<ref>Ashkenas, Jeremy; Aisch, Gregor (December 5, 2016). [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/05/world/europe/populism-in-age-of-trump.html?_r=0 European Populism in the Age of Donald Trump]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved December 5, 2016.</ref>

In addition to Trump's defeat of Clinton, the Republican Party kept control of the House and Senate, outperforming expectations.<ref>Bresnahan, John (November 9, 2016). [http://www.politico.eu/article/republicans-on-cusp-of-keeping-the-senate/ Republicans hold the Senate in a stunner]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref><ref>Hughes, Siobhan (November 9, 2016). [http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-are-confident-about-retaining-control-of-the-house-1478634160 Democrats Gain Seats in House, But GOP Retains Majority]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref> The Republican Party performed well—much better than expected—in state races, winning trifectas in [[Kentucky]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], and [[New Hampshire]], and Democrats only had six trifectas and total control in five states, a record low.<ref>Greenblatt, Alan (November 9, 2016). [http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html Republicans Add to Their Dominance of State Legislatures]. ''Governing''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref><ref>Siegel, Josh (November 9, 2016). [http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/09/republicans-maintain-strong-control-of-state-capitols-what-that-means/ Republicans Maintain Strong Control of State Capitols. Here’s What That Means.] ''The Daily Signal''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref> The GOP won 25 trifectas, the largest since 1952.<ref>Lieb, David A. (December 29, 2016). [https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune/20161229/281822873464433 GOP-Controlled States Aim to Reshape Laws]. ''Chicago Tribune'' (from the Associated Press). Retrieved December 30, 2016.</ref> The GOP now controlled the highest amount of governorships since 1922,<ref>Lieb, David A. (November 9, 2016). [http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-11-09/republicans-expand-control-of-governorships-legislatures Republicans governorships rise to highest mark since 1922]. ''U.S. News & World Report''. Retrieved November 9, 2016.</ref> and it controlled the most state legislative chambers in history.<ref>Bosman, Julie & Davey, Monica (November 11, 2016). [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/republicans-expand-control-in-a-deeply-divided-nation.html Republicans Expand Control in a Deeply Divided Nation]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved November 14, 2016.</ref>

Despite expectations that Trump's election victory would cause the markets to plunge, the [[Dow Jones Industrial Average]] actually performed very strongly, closing at the highest level it had ever reached in history after the second day.<ref name="MarketRally">La Monica, Paul R. (November 10, 2016). [http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/investing/markets-stocks-donald-trump-rally/index.html The 'yuge' Donald Trump market rally continues]. ''CNN Money''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref> It is rare for the stock market to rise immediately after a U.S. presidential election regardless of the winner.<ref name="MarketRally"/> The stock market had its best week in five years due to optimism of a Trump presidency.<ref>Craig, Victoria (November 11, 2016). [http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/11/trump-optimism-propels-dow-to-best-week-in-five-years.html Trump Optimism Propels Dow to Best Week in Five Years]. ''Fox Business''. Retrieved November 12, 2016.</ref>

After the election, childish [[leftists]] and [[anarchists]], who could not accept the results of the election, strongly protested Trump's victory and committed outrageous and extreme acts of vandalism and violence,<ref name="Protests">Chiaramonte, Perry (November 10, 2016). [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html Trump protests intensify, as doubts swirl about spontaneity]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> even brutally attacking and beating at least one alleged Trump supporter.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/video-emerges-group-beating-chicago-man-while-yelling-dont-vote-trump.html Video emerges of mob beating Chicago man while yelling 'don't vote Trump']. ''Fox News''. November 10, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2016.</ref> Many of these protests were likely organized and coordinated, as many protestors were bused in by Coach buses.<ref name="Protests"/> This occurred on the heels of Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign, and major mainstream media condemning in the harshest terms Trump and his supporters' complaints of a "rigged election," and failure to accept the results would damage democracy. Clinton, President Obama, and the media highlighted the protests and failed to condemn the leftist violence and protests as detrimental to democracy.

==President of the United States==
:''See also: [[Donald Trump achievements]] and [[Trump Supreme Court]]''
===Transition===
The day after being elected president, Trump released a solidly conservative agenda for his first 100 days in office, even though ending the [[abortion|legalized murder of the unborn]] was not on the agenda.<ref>Kelly, Amita & Sprunt, Barbara (November 9, 2016). [http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days]. ''NPR''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

On November 30, 2016, before Trump had finalized all his cabinet appointments, it was still described by Politico as "a conservative dream team that has Republicans cheering and liberals in despair" due to the many strong conservatives Trump had appointed, in contrast to moderates like [[George W. Bush]].<ref>Restuccia, Andrew; Cook, Nancy; Woellert, Lorraine (November 30, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-conservative-dream-team-231972 Trump's conservative dream team]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 30, 2016.</ref> Accordingly, ''[[Newsweek]]'' called Trump's incomplete cabinet the most conservative cabinet in U.S. history.<ref>Cooper, Matthew (December 9, 2016). [http://www.newsweek.com/trump-cabinet-picks-nominees-conservative-530477 Donald Trump Is Building the Most Conservative Presidential Cabinet In U.S. History]. ''Newsweek''. Retrieved December 10, 2016.</ref> ''[[The Washington Times]]'' noted how Trump was defying Washington establishment norms in his cabinet picks.<ref>Hurt, Charles (December 6, 2016). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/6/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-define-business-as-not/ Trump defines business as not-usual for D.C.] ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 10, 2016.</ref>

''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' stated that "it’s nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent" in Trump's appointments.<ref>Seib, Gerald (December 5, 2016). [http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-shuffles-the-ideological-deck-1480955194 Donald Trump Shuffles the Ideological Deck]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved December 5, 2016.</ref> However, this can be easily explained by the fact that Trump has used some of his cabinet nominations to unite the GOP by appealing to most of its factions, even though Trump's appointments are still very conservative.

===Inauguration===
[[File:Donald Trumpswearing in.jpg|thumb|200px|Trump being sworn in, January 20, 2017.]]
Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017, giving one of the strongest inauguration addresses in American history.<ref>Boyle, Matthew (January 20, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/20/america-first-president-donald-trump-brings-the-rain-in-inauguration-address/ ‘America First’: President Donald Trump Brings the Rain in Inauguration Address]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref><ref>McCaskill, Nolan D. (January 20, 2017). [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/key-points-of-trumps-inaugural-speech-233900 Key moments from Trump's inauguration speech]. ''Politico''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref><ref>Scott, Patrick; Midgley, Robert (January 20, 2017). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/donald-trump-just-delivered-american-inauguration-speech-ever/ Donald Trump just delivered the most 'American' inauguration speech ever]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref> His first bill signed as president was to allow retired general and Defense Secretary nominee [[James Mattis]] to be confirmed.<ref>Kopan, Tal (January 20, 2017). [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-first-law-actions/ President Donald Trump signs first bill into law]. ''CNN''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref> That same day, Trump instituted a national day of patriotism,<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-measures-idUSKBN1542IH Trump takes first actions on Cabinet, declares day of patriotism: spokesman]. ''Reuters''. January 20, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref> and a few days later Trump officially designated his inauguration day the '''''National Day of Patriotic Devotion'''''.<ref>[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion National Day of Patriotic Devotion -- Proclamation 9570 of January 20, 2017]. ''Federal Register''. January 24, 2017. Retrieved February 2, 2017.</ref><ref>Shelbourne, Mallory (January 23, 2017). [http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315735-trump-declares-inauguration-day-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315735-trump-declares-inauguration-day-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved February 2, 2017.</ref>

Despite the fact that leftists knew for two months that Trump would be inaugurated president, hateful, anti-American, and immature leftists engaged in violent protests and did major acts of vandalism and even injuring the police who were sent in.<ref>Vargas, Theresa; Hartz, Taylor; Hermann, Peter (January 20, 2017). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/protesters-bring-shouts-skirmishes-and-shutdowns-to-inauguration-celebration/2017/01/20/00ea4c72-df11-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.c4443fa64f5a Inauguration protesters vandalize, set fires, try to disrupt Trump’s oath, as police arrest 200]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref><ref name="LimoFire">Lawler, David (January 20, 2017). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/anti-donald-trump-activists-try-block-access-inauguration/ Donald Trump protests: Limo 'set on fire' and 217 arrested as police use tear gas on black-clad activists]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref> Over 200 protestors were arrested.<ref name="LimoFire"/>

Despite having no power to block Trump's cabinet nominees and having no reason to delay the process,<ref>Pergram, Chad (January 20, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/20/senate-battle-erupts-over-dem-delay-confirming-trump-nominees.html Senate battle erupts over Dem 'delay' confirming Trump nominees]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 23, 2017.</ref> liberal Senate Democrats delayed confirmation of Trump's nominees, so that only two were confirmed on Trump's first day in office.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (January 22, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/22/trumps-cabinet-picks-delayed-by-democrats-only-two/? Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks delayed by Democrats, only two confirmed]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved January 23, 2017.</ref> This was a large difference from other recent presidents,<ref>Phillips, Amber (January 21, 2017). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trump-will-start-his-presidency-with-the-smallest-confirmed-cabinet-in-decades/?utm_term=.9d7692169687 Donald Trump is starting his presidency with the smallest confirmed Cabinet in decades]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved Janaury 23, 2017.</ref> who, with the exception of [[George H. W. Bush]], had much larger numbers confirmed in the first week.<ref>Bluey, Robert (January 22, 2017). [http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/22/trumps-nominees-face-unprecedented-democrat-obstructionism/ Trump’s Nominees Face ‘Unprecedented’ Democrat Obstructionism]. ''The Daily Signal''. Retrieved January 23, 2017.</ref>

===Tenure===
Due to his promotion and support of conservative, America First policies, President Trump faced large opposition from the Left, including from within the government bureaucracy.<ref>Singman, Brooke (January 1, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/trump-faces-bureaucratic-battle-in-implementing-agenda.html Trump faces bureaucratic battle in implementing agenda]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved February 1, 2017.</ref><ref>Kurtz, Howard (February 3, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/03/empire-strikes-back-why-trumps-private-talks-with-foreign-leaders-were-leaked.html The empire strikes back: Why Trump's private talks with foreign leaders were leaked]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved February 3, 2017.</ref>

On January 23, 2017, Trump signed an order which withdrew the United States from the globalist [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]].<ref>Chakraborty, Barnini (January 23, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-withdrawing-us-from-tpp-trade-deal.html Trump signs executive order withdrawing US from TPP trade deal]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 23, 2017.</ref> That same day, Trump signed an order reinstating the [[Mexico City Policy]], which defunded International Planned Parenthood and other organizations that promote foreign abortions.<ref>LaBarbera, Peter (January 23, 2017). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trump-signs-order-defunding-international-planned-parenthood-forei BREAKING: Trump signs order defunding International Planned Parenthood, foreign abortions]. ''LifeSite News''. Retrieved January 23, 2017.</ref><ref>Hellman, Jessie (January 23, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/abortion/315652-trump-signs-executive-order-reinstating-global-gag-rule-on Trump reinstates ban on US funds promoting abortion overseas]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved Janaury 23, 2017.</ref>

Trump was very busy and productive in his first week and showed he was serious about his campaign promises, undoing Obama's illegitimate legacy and instituting conservative executive orders.<ref>Davenport, David (January 27, 2017). [http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/01/27/how-trump-managed-to-undo-obamas-legacy-in-one-week/#3ae6bcba5bbf How Trump Managed To Undo Obama's Legacy In One Week]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 27, 2017.</ref><ref>Said-Moorhouse, Lauren (January 26, 2017). [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/executive-orders-presidents-actions-presidential-memoranda/ What's Trump done so far? His productive first week and how it stacks up to previous presidents]. ''CNN''. Retrieved January 27, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/president-trumps-first-week-action President Trump's First Week of Action]. ''whitehouse.gov''. January 28, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2017.</ref> This caused the [[stock market]] to increase, and the [[Dow Jones]] passed 20,000 points for the first time in history.<ref>Imbert, Fred (January 25, 2017). [http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/us-markets.html Dow closes above 20,000 for first time as Trump orders send stocks flying]. ''CNBC''. Retrieved January 25, 2017.</ref><ref>Craig, Victoria (January 25, 2017). [http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/01/25/dow-races-past-20k-in-reinvigorated-trump-rally.html Dow Races Past 20K in Reinvigorated Trump Rally]. ''Fox Business''. Retrieved January 25, 2017.</ref>

Trump received criticism from liberals and [[establishment]] Republicans<ref>McHugh, Katie (January 31, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/establishment-republicans-bash-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-refugee-resettlement/ Establishment Republicans Bash Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration, Refugee Resettlement]. ''Bretibart''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> when he signed an executive order temporarily banning immigration from certain high-risk Islamic countries as well as refugee entry. Despite this criticism, 49 percent of the American public supported the decision compared to 41 percent opposed, according to the "mainstream" Reuters,<ref>Kahn, Chris (January 31, 2017). [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them more safe]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> and 57% percent of likely American voters supported the ban according to Rasmussen.<ref>[http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens].'' January 2017. Retrieved February 2, 2017.</ref>

Trump showed he would not tolerate incompetent leftist administration officials when he fired acting [[United States Department of Justice|Attorney General]] Sally Yates (a left-wing Obama holdover) when she refused to defend his refugee and immigration ban executive order.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/30/acting-ag-tells-justice-department-staff-not-to-defend-trumps-refugee-order.html Trump fires acting AG after Justice Department staff told not to defend refugee order]. ''Fox News''. January 30, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/statement-appointment-dana-boente-acting-attorney-general Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General]. ''whitehouse.gov''. January 30, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> Trump emulated [[Ronald Reagan]]'s firing of the striking PATCO workers in 1981 by doing so,<ref>Boyle, Matthew (January 30, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/30/trumps-patco-moment-emanating-reagan-president-takes-control-federal-government-protect-country-citizens/ Trump’s PATCO Moment: Emanating Reagan, the President Takes Control of Federal Government to ‘Protect the Country and Its Citizens’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> contrary to the [[mainstream media]] spin.<ref>Kurtz, Howard (February 1, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/trumps-firing-defiant-obama-holdover-why-hes-no-richard-nixon.html Trump's firing of a defiant Obama holdover: Why he's no Richard Nixon]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved February 1, 2017.</ref> That same night, Trump replaced the acting director of [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] (another Obama holdover) with a more competent official who had a reputation for enforcing immigration laws.<ref>Chamberlain, Samuel (January 31, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/trump-names-thomas-homan-acting-director-ice-replacing-obama-holdover.html Trump names Thomas Homan acting director of ICE, replacing Obama holdover]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>Berman, Mark; Zapotosky, Matt (January 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/30/trump-appoints-new-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-director-noted-for-his-work-deporting-illegal-immigrants/?utm_term=.addf12ae690a Trump appoints new Immigration and Customs Enforcement director noted for his work deporting illegal immigrants]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref>

On January 31, 2017, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].<ref>Klukowski, Ken (January 31, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/trump-nominates-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/ Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>Hurley, Lawrence; Holland, Steve (January 31, 2017). [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15F1OW Trump picks conservative judge Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> The nomination was well received by many conservatives.<ref>Chamberlain, Steve (January 31, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/reaction-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick-split-along-partisan-lines.html Conservatives hail Trump's Supreme Court pick]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref><ref>Ertelt, Steven (January 31, 2017). [http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/31/president-donald-trump-nominates-pro-life-friendly-judge-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court/ President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved January 31, 2017.</ref> Others, most notably [[Andrew Schlafly]], disagreed with the nomination due to concerns about Gorsuch's position on abortion.<ref>Dannenfelser, Marjorie (January 31, 2017). [http://townhall.com/columnists/marjoriedannenfelser/2017/01/31/the-truth-about-trumps-prolife-scotus-list-n2279232 The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List]. ''Townhall''. Retrieved February 1, 2017.</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1302133&oldid=1301962</ref>

==Books==
''Trump: The Art of the Deal'' with Tony Schwartz (1987) 
''Trump: Surviving at the Top'' with Charles Leerhsen (1990) 
''Trump: The Art of the Comeback'' with Kate Bohner (1997) 
''The America We Deserve'' with Dave Shiflett (2000) 
''Trump: How to Get Rich'' with Meredith McIver (2004) 
''Trump: Think Like a Billionaire: Everything You Need to Know about Success, Real Estate and Life'' with Meredith McIver (2005) 
''Why We Want You to Be Rich: Two Men, One Message'' with Meredith McIver and Robert T. Kiyosaki (2006) 
''Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life'' with Bill Zanker (2007) 
''Trump: Never Give Up: How I Turned My Biggest Challenges into Success'' with Meredith McIver (2008) 
''Think Like a Champion: An Informal Education in Business and Life'' with Meredith McIver (2009) 
''Midas Touch: Why Some Entrepreneurs Get Rich—and Why Most Don't'' with Robert T. Kiyosaki (2011) 
''Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again'' (2011) 
''Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again'' (2015)

==Quotes==
===Quotes as U.S. President===
====Inaugural address====
*"....today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people."<ref name="InaugTransc">[http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/full-text-donald-trump-inauguration-speech-transcript-233907 Full text: 2017 Donald Trump inauguration speech transcript]. ''Politico''. January 20, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.</ref>
*"We assembled here today our issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power, from this day forward: a new vision will govern our land, from this day forward, it's going to be only America first. America first."<ref name="InaugTransc"/>
*"[We will] unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth."<ref name="InaugTransc"/>
*"When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice."<ref name="InaugTransc"/>

===Quotes from the 2016 campaign for President===
[[File:Donald Trump and Mike Pence RNC July 2016.jpg|thumb|Trump and his running-mate, [[Mike Pence]], at the 2016 Republican National Convention.]]
Trump's tactics of naming and shaming candidates has been proven very effective. He called Jeb Bush 'low-energy Jeb' and it stuck. Then came Marco Rubio as 'Little Marco.' Next came 'Lyin' Ted' for Ted Cruz. For the Democrats, he calls Hillary Clinton 'Crooked Hillary'. He doesn't give Bernie Sanders the same treatment though he has referred to him as a Communist.

*“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of [[globalism]].”
*"I think we have a president who, as a president, is totally incompetent, and he doesn’t know what he’s doing. I think he has no idea what he’s doing. And our country is going to [[hell]]."<ref>http://time.com/4210983/republican-debate-barack-obama-incompetent/</ref>
*"I will be the greatest jobs president that [[God]] ever created."
*"I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich."
*"Free trade is terrible. Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have stupid people."
*"Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody. Within our military, I will find the General Patton, or I will find General MacArthur, I will find the right guy."
*"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will have [[Mexico]] pay for that wall."
*"I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct."<ref>http://video.foxnews.com/v/4406746003001/watch-a-replay-of-fox-news-prime-time-presidential-debate/?#sp=show-clips</ref><ref>https://www.google.com/search?q=a+big+problem+with+our+country+is+too+politically+incorrect&oq=a+big+problem+with+our+country+is+too+politically+incorrect&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.8295j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8</ref>
*"Becoming the nominee of the party of [[Abraham Lincoln]] has been the greatest honor of my life.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294401-trump-claims-party-of-lincoln-mantle-in-speech-at-black</ref>

====General election debate quotes====
*"Because you would be in jail." (Trump in response to Clinton saying that it would be a good thing that he "is not in charge of the law in our country")<ref name="2ndTranscript">[http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/2016-presidential-debate-transcript-229519 Full transcript: Second 2016 presidential debate]. ''Politico''. October 10, 2016. Retrieved October 11, 2016.</ref>
*"Now she’s blaming the lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln. ...Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you." (Trump in response to Clinton's excuse for having "'a public and private position on certain issues.'")<ref name="2ndTranscript"/>
*"Hillary has experience, but it’s bad experience."<ref>Goodenough, Patrick (September 27, 2016). [http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/ Trump: 'Hillary Has Experience, But It's Bad Experience']. ''cnsnews.com''. Retrieved November 10, 2016.</ref>

===Quotes from Twitter===
[[File:Screenshot 2015-09-28-12-11-31-1.png|right|300px|Thumb|Tweet from Billionaire Carl Icahn]]

{{Cquote| '''Somebody said I’m the Ernest Hemingway of 140 characters.'''}}

* "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (August 6, 2012, 1:23 pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref>
* "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (November 13, 2012, 12:23pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/268449146711703553 "It’s amazing how people can talk about me but I’m not allowed to talk about them."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref>
* "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."<ref>Trump, Donald J. (January 1, 2014, 4:39pm). [http://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/418542137899491328 "This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice."] Tweet by @realDonaldTrump.</ref>

====2015====
* "So many 'politically correct' fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!" (August 8, 2015)
* "Notice that illegal immigrants will be given ObamaCare and free college tuition but nothing has been mentioned about our VETERANS #DemDebate" (October 13, 2015)
* "They laughed at me when I said to bomb the ISIS controlled oil fields. Now they are not laughing and doing what I said." (November 13, 2015)
* "President Obama said 'ISIL continues to shrink' in an interview just hours before the horrible attack in Paris. He is just so bad! CHANGE." (November 14, 2015)
* "Refugees from Syria are now pouring into our great country. Who knows who they are - some could be ISIS. Is our president insane?" (November 17, 2015)
* "Eight Syrians were just caught on the southern border trying to get into the U.S. ISIS maybe? I told you so. WE NEED A BIG & BEAUTIFUL WALL!" (November 19, 2015)

====2016====
* "Hillary said that guns don't keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!" (January 3, 2016)
* "I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!" (February 20, 2016)
* "The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!" (March 12, 2016)
* "Why is it that the horrendous protesters, who scream, curse punch, shut down roads/doors during my RALLIES, are never blamed by media? SAD!" (March 20, 2016)
* "Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was. Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!" (March 22, 2016)
* "For the 1st time in American history, America’s 16,500 border patrol agents have issue[d] a presidential primary endorsement—me! Thank you." (April 1, 2016)

===Other quotes===
* "[T]he country is going to hell."<ref>Cassidy, Chris (March 19, 2015). [http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/03/country_is_going_to_hell_claims_donald_trump "'Country is going to hell,' claims Donald Trump"]. BostonHerald.com website.</ref>
* "We have no leader in this country.”<ref>Reisner, Hiram (April 22, 2011). [http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742 "Trump: I'd just take Libyan oil"]. NewsMax website.</ref>
* "Our leaders are stupid, they are stupid people."<ref>Pierce, Tony (April 29, 2011). [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/donald-trump-in-vegas-our-leaders-are-stupid-they-are-stupid-people.html "Donald Trump in Vegas: 'Our leaders are stupid; they are stupid people'"]. Los Angeles Times website/Top of the Ticket blog.</ref>
* "I can tell you I am [the 2012 Obama campaign's] worst nightmare."<ref>Mooney, Alexander (April 11, 2011). [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/trump-says-he-is-obama-campaigns-worst-nightmare/comment-page-6/ "Trump says he is Obama campaign's worst nightmare"]. Cable News Network website/politicalticker blog.</ref>
* "Obama has no solutions."<ref>Coz, Steve (August 19, 2012). [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-gibbs-fox-obama/2012/08/19/id/449050/ "Trump fires back at Obama campaign smear"]. Newsmax website/Newsfront.</ref>

== Liberal denialism and Donald Trump ==

:''See also:'' [[Liberal denialism and Donald Trump]] and [[Liberal denial]]

Post the 2016 U.S. Presidential election many liberals were in denial that Donald Trump was going to be president of the United States. Before the election, many liberal media outlets took the line that Donald Trump could not win the [[Republican]] primary and could not win the presidential election.<ref>
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/the-wrongest-media-predictions-about-donald-trump/?utm_term=.febb2623a89f The wrongest media predictions about Donald Trump The wrongest media predictions about Donald Trump], ''Washington Post'', 2016</ref>

=== Political scientists, denialism and Donald Trump ===

{{See also|Atheism and science}}

Few, if any, [[Political science|political scientists]] predicted early on that Donald Trump would win the Republican primary and then would subsequently be elected president of the United States. Furthermore, most pollsters indicated that Trump would lose the election.

27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God.<ref>
*[http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html Scientists belief in God varies starkly by discipline], Livescience.com
*[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/ Most doctors believe in God], NBC News</ref> Most American [[atheism|atheists]] lean to the left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]). Compared to [[medical science]], which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable.

===Trump and the mainstream media===
{{See also|Mainstream media's war on Trump}}
The leftist [[mainstream media]] despises Trump and fails to report objectively when covering him.

==See also==
* [[Donald Trump's religious views]]
* [[Essay:Donald Trump One Two Body Blow]]
* [[The Chalkening]]
* [[Trump University]]
* [[Kathryn Steinle]]
* [[Sarah Root]]
* [[Alveda King]]
* [[Trump effect]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.greatagain.gov Presidential transition website GreatAgain.gov]
* [http://www.trump.com Official website]
* [http://www.LyingCrookedHillary.com LyingCrookedHillary.com]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg The Untruth About Donald Trump] by [[Stefan Molyneux]], Published on Jan 18, 2016
* [http://www.untruthaboutdonaldtrump.com UntruthAboutDonaldTrump.com]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yyoauXmzjg Do Emotions Trump Facts?] [[Thomas Sowell]] on Donald Trump - Rebutted! by Stefan Molyneux
* [http://shouldtrumprun.com/ Should Donald Run? Polling]
* [http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/04/trump-explains-conversion-on-abortion.html Trump explains his pro-life conversion]
* [https://www.donaldjtrump.com Donald Trump 2016 campaign website]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq3iCn2y74 Inside of Trump's Boeing 757]

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Trump, Donald}}

[[Category:Donald Trump]]
[[Category:Celebrities]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Liberal Conservatism]]
[[Category:Billionaires]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category:2016 presidential election]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2017-02-09T00:24:20Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.<ref>https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html</ref>"

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.<ref>https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html</ref>

Ex-homosexuals

2017-02-09T00:21:56Z

ChristianAdvocate: Replaced content with "'''Ex-homosexuals''' do not exist.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=1jYuientrGoC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Shidlo+and+Schroeder+gay+sample&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Shidlo%20and%..."

'''Ex-homosexuals''' do not exist.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=1jYuientrGoC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Shidlo+and+Schroeder+gay+sample&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Shidlo%20and%20Schroeder%20gay%20sample&f=false</ref>

Public schools in the United States

2017-02-09T00:19:57Z

ChristianAdvocate:

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Because of violence, vandalism, and other undesirable elements, this public school has a glaring sign warning of the on-campus surveillance cameras at its parking lot entrance.]]
'''[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]]''' have become predominantly secular<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> [[Liberals]] censor [[classroom prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], sharing of [[faith]] in classrooms during school hours, and teaching [[Bible]]-based [[morality]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Mandatory [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual indoctrination]] is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref> The failures of underperforming public schools are a paradigm of [[socialism]], along with [[landfills]] and the [[Canada|Canadian]] healthcare system.

The following are characteristics of US public schools:

*30% of public school students fail to graduate from [[high school]],<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%.<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% of students leave high school unqualified to attend four-year college, and many are unable to hold a steady job.<ref name="graduate"/>
*A 2007 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 77% of students between eighth and 12th grade had used illicit drugs.<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002]</ref> Fatal overdoses are common but underreported.<ref>Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref> Public schools are required to present [[Drug education|drug "education"]] to kids.
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*About half of the viable pregnancies among girls attending public school end in [[abortion]]s and about half end in birth. Public schools "[[Sex education|educate]]" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame [to [[teenage pregnancy]]]," the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% of students had been dangerously "[[binge drinking]]" in the previous 30 days, and 50% of seniors regularly drink illegally, according to a 2007 study of Ottawa County, Michigan.<ref>The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press: Ottawa County confronts teen drinking, By Greg Chandler, December 04, 2008 [http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_county_confronts_teen_d.html]</ref><ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% of students become [[Addiction|addicted]] to [[cigarettes]]<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a [[Homosexual Agenda|pro-homosexual]] student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the Bible, even as [[Bible history|history]] and literature
*35% of students are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Health screening of public schools in Memphis, Tennessee, found that nearly 10% of students have mental health problems.<ref name="health"/>
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>
{{See also|Public school culture}}

== 4-day week ==

In many states, administrators and other public school employees are paid full salaries, at substantial public expense, but at some of their schools actual teaching occurs only 4 days a week, rather than 5. These states include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming ... and Washington passed legislation to allow it there too.<ref>http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-calendar-four-day-school-week-overview.aspx</ref>

==History==
===Religious origins===
In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

====Curricula used====
According to [[Noah Webster]], "the books used were chiefly or whole Dilworth's Spelling Books, the Psalter, Testament and Bible".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DYVX2qf5xIAC&pg=PA118|last1=Gutjahr|first1=Paul C.|title=An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880|date=1999|work=[[Stanford University]] Press|pages=118}}</ref> Other sources such as the U.S. Office of Education note the following books used: The ABC, the Horn Book, the New England Primer, the Bible, Catechisms, and the Psalters.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gwENAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA8-PA19|title=Statistics of Land-grant Colleges and Universities, Volume 1, Issues 1-26|date=1921|work=Office of Education|pages=18–19}}</ref>

''[[The New England Primer]]'' is of particular note given its widespread use over such a long period of time.<ref name=encyclopedia>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e6YoCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA874|title=Encyclopedia of Christian Education, Volume 3|date=2015|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|pages=874}}</ref> The ''Primer'', also known as ''The Little Bible'', was in use in schools for over 150 years.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-New-England-Primer The New-England Primer], [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]</ref>

===Importation of the Prussian model===
In the mid 19th century, [[Horace Mann]], an early education reformer, studied the methods of [[Prussian Education]] and brought them back to the [[United States]]. According to [[John Dewey]]:
{{cquote|Horace Mann and the disciples of [[Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi|Pestalozzi]] did their peculiar missionary work so completely as intellectually to crowd the conservative to the wall. For half a century after their time the ethical emotion, the bulk of exhortation, the current formulae and catchwords, the distinctive principles of theory have been found on the side of progress, of what is known as reform. The supremacy of self-activity, the symmetrical development of all the powers, the priority of character to information, the necessity of putting the real before the symbol, the concrete before the abstract, the necessity of following the order of nature and not the order of human convention - all these ideas, at the outset so revolutionary, have filtered into the pedagogic consciousness and become the commonplace of pedagogic writing and of the gatherings where teachers meet for inspiration and admonition.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JXkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA332|last1=Dewey|first1=John|title=Journal of Proceedings and Addresses|date=1901|work=[[National Education Association]]}}</ref>}}
Mann would travel to [[Prussia]] in 1843 to visit the schools and study them.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UrxSUMN4-FsC&pg=PA224|last1=Karier|first1=Clarence J.|title=The Individual, Society, and Education: A History of American Educational Ideas|date=1986|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=978-0252013096|quote="In 1843, it was these Pestalozzian practices which so impressed Horace Mann on his visit to the Prussian Schools.}}</ref>

====Secularization====
According to historian Ellwood Cubberly:
{{cquote|He(Horace Mann) will always be regarded as perhaps the greatest of the "founders" of our American system of free public schools. No one did more than he to establish in the minds of the American people the conception that education should be universal, non-sectarian, and free, and that its aim should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning or the advancement of sectarian ends.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J_tEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA167|last1=Cubberley|first1=Ellwood. P|title=Public Education in the United States: A Study and Interpretation of American Educational History; an Introductory Textbook Dealing with the Larger Problems of Present-day Education in the Light of Their Historical Development|date=1919}}</ref>}}

John Dewey regarded Horace Mann as the "patron saint of progressive education."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t7QTC8NuGL8C&pg=PA181|last1=Dewey|first1=John|title=The Later Works, 1925-1953: 1935-1937|publisher=SIU Press|date=1987}}</ref>

===20th century===
Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7V83obZcnvkC&pg=PA34|last1=Mathison|first1=Sandra|last2=Ross|first2=E. Wayne|title=Battleground : Schools|date=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|quote=""Mann was eventually successful, and in 1852 Massachusetts passed the first compulsory education laws in North America."}}</ref> by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref> Liberal politicians are the most frequent opponents of initiatives designed to build moral fiber in the public school system, with organizations like the [[ACLU]] and teacher's unions devoting a significant amount of their resources towards this end. In 2010, a school board in [[North Dakota]] decided to change the name of their mascot from the "Satans." Liberals unrolled a large-scale media campaign that blanketed the district with pro-Satan propaganda in an attempt to keep the name, but they were unsuccessful.<ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-11/news/ct-perspec-0311-things-20120311_1_devil-man-great-deceiver-native-americans</ref>

=== Prayer ===

{{See also|Classroom prayer}}

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] stated, "Nothing in the [[First Amendment]] converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door."—President Clinton, July 12, 1998<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the [[Clinton administration]] and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in public schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

===Teaching of Islam in the public schools===
Public school textbooks have been found to be portraying [[Islam]] in a positive light. Some world history textbooks in [[Florida]] claim ''Muslims profess to worship the same God as Christians and Jews'', women historically had more rights in the Islamic world than the Christian world, and [[Jihad]] is not a violent movement, among other falsehoods. These lies have caused patriots some areas of the state to complain to local school boards, but not much has been done by the boards to actually remove the Islamic propaganda.

==Gender disparity==
Public schools as of late have seen girls' scores soar above boys' because schools have been geared toward the needs of girls and schools seek to emasculate boys by preventing healthy roughhousing and having psychiatrists prescribe boys drugs such as Ritalin. Then boys often come to hate school because radical feminists seek to prevent men from being men and forcing males to go through counseling to "discuss their feelings" and other liberal hogwash treating all students as if they were female. Colleges, because of this trend, see a trend of 60/40 female to male ratio because of feminist drivel such as romance novels in literature and ineffective therapy and attempts to push feminine traits on boys and young men making them frustrated and fed up with the system unless they agree to the school's desire to become effeminate.

Liberal ideology has also eliminated most male role models in public schools, such that less than a quarter of the teachers are men now.<ref>http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28</ref>

In areas on such standardized tests as ACT and SAT, girls have typically scored higher in areas such as mathematics and science. Colleges have become majority female, and the feminization of men is strong on college campuses with events that openly advocate female superiority. Females are also intent on emasculating males by forcing them to see "chick flicks" and concerts of female singers which also promote feminist nonsense, strongly continuing a trend that begins in high school which results in a large number of males taking up historically female programs such as psychology and nursing; this begins in school where teachers and administrators teach boys and girls to be girls and not only condone but encourage such emasculation which only continues throughout the boys' lives as learned behaviors are strongest during the crucial formative years these boys are in school.

Most U.S. public schools receive federal funding. Those that do are subject to [[Title IX]] which among other things requires equal access to extra curricular activities and sports.

==Suppression and intolerance of alternative views==
[[Activist judges]] have proclaimed that teaching [[creationism]]<ref>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html</ref> and [[intelligent design]]<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref> in public schools is unconstitutional because they claim that such teachings would amount to a government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.<ref>''See'' ''Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 765</ref> Hypocritically, nothing has been done to remove the religions of Secular Humanism and Islam from the schools.

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July–August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
{{See also|Textbook bias}}

[[Textbook]]s (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal bias]] exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—[[marriage]], [[religion]], [[politics]], and [[business]]. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread [[secular]] and [[liberal]] mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]".<ref>''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the [[University of Dayton]], wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the [[Founding Fathers]] wanted a "wall of [[Separation of church and state|separation" between church and state]], that "[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] only because he needed [[Black Soldiers in the Civil War|black soldiers]]", and that "[[Mikhail Gorbachev]], not [[Ronald Reagan]], was responsible for ending the [[Cold War]]".<ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

Evidence for bias in school textbooks includes promotion of [[Homosexual]] agenda, support of liberal viewpoint, as well as support of the unproven theory of evolution. Most Biology textbooks do not provide the [[Creationist]] viewpoint a chance, or even a second thought.

===Non-Dismissal of tenured teachers===
Due to the strength of the nation's teachers' [[Labor union|union]], it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with [[tenure]]. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest [[school district]], Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==
=== Before 1962 ===
Given that public schools educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school-sponsored prayer in 1962. Here is an impressive list of people who attended public schools ''before'' the banning of school-sponsored prayer.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930s.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961.<ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a mostly unimpressive list of people who attended public school ''after'' school-sponsored prayer was banned in 1962:

*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981; dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970s.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970s;<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html</ref> claiming to be [[pro-life]], Sununu arranged for the nomination of [[David Souter]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], where he then repeatedly voted on the side of [[abortion]]
*[[John Edwards]], indicted in 2011 on allegations arising from his affair with a mistress, was a former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]] and two-time unsuccessful candidate for nomination for president, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960s.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964); came out in support of [[gay marriage]] and [[abortion]] in 2010.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-bush-supports-gay-marriage-abortion/story?id=10629213</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964, and became the only president impeached in the 20th century.
*[[Anthony Weiner]], a congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011 after first denying but then confirming an indecent use of [[Twitter]], and later dropped out of the race for New York City Mayor following a second sex scandal, graduated from a public high school in [[Brooklyn]].
*[[Steve Jobs]], founder of [[Apple Inc.]], graduated from Homestead High School in Cupertino, CA in 1972; his colleague, [[Steve Wozniak]], graduated from the same high school in 1968.
*[[Eminem]], a liberal [[rapper]], repeatedly failed 9th grade in public school and ultimately dropped out.
*[[Alan Colmes]], a liberal news commentator, attended public school in [[New York City]].
*[[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate on the [[Republican Party]] ticket in 2008 and favorite of some [[Tea Party]] groups, went to [[Wasilla High School]] and graduated in 1982 and then attended 5 different colleges before becoming more [[conservative]] later in life.<ref>http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2008/09/sarah-palin-198.html</ref>
*[[Rick Perry]], [[Texas]] governor, infringed on [[parental rights]] by requiring young girls to receive an HPV vaccine.
*[[Kenneth D. Cockrell]], [[Texas]] Graduated from Rockdale High School, Rockdale, Texas, in 1968. A veteran of five spaceflights, Cockrell has logged more than 1,560 hours in space.<ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/cockrell.htmll</ref>
*[[Russell Alan Hulse]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref name="alumni.bxscience.edu">http://alumni.bxscience.edu/?page=NotableAlumni</ref>
*[[Richard Axel]], [[New York]] Graduated from Stuyvesant High School, New York, New York, in 1963. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel</ref>
*[[Hugh David Politzer]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref name="alumni.bxscience.edu"/>
*[[Christine O'Donnell]] graduated from Moorestown High School in 1987.<ref>[http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010100363&nclick_check=1 "Delaware politics: From middle-class New Jersey, moral activist Christine O'Donnell knew 'God was calling'", ''Delaware Online'']</ref>
*[[Scott Walker]] graduated from Delavan-Darien High School in 1986.<ref>[http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2010/sep/07/rock-county-close-home-walker/ Ames, Ann Marie, "Rock County Close to Home for Walker", ''Walworth County Today'', Sept. 7, 2010]</ref>
*[[Paul Ryan]], an establishment [[Republican]], graduated from Joseph A. Craig High School, Janesville, WI in 1988.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/16/politics/wis-ryan/</ref>
*[[Sharron Angle]] (born 1949) graduated from Wooster High School in Reno, Nevada.<ref>[http://www.sharronangle.com/sharron-angle-biography "Sharron Angle, Biography"]</ref>
*[[Jon Huntsman]], Republican Presidential candidate and former Governor of Utah, attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City, Utah before he dropped out in 1978 to pursue a career as a rock and roll keyboardist.<ref>[http://www.jon2012.com/jon]</ref>
*[[Michelle Bachmann]], Republican member of the House of Representatives graduated from Anoka High School, Anoka, Minnesota in 1974.<ref>[http://www.startribune.com/local/north/129276683.html?refer=y]</ref>
*[[Mike Huckabee]], former Republican Governor of Arkansas, graduated from Hope High School, Hope Arkansas, in 1974.<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=108]</ref>
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]], Prime Minister of Israel, Graduated from Cheltenham High School, Wyncote, Pennsylvania, in 1967.<ref>[http://cheltenhamalumni.org/BIOS/netanyahu-benjamin.htm]</ref>
*[[Rand Paul]], Republican Senator, Graduated from Brazoswood High School, Clute, Texas in 1981.<ref>[http://politics.laws.com/rand-paul]</ref>

==See also==
* [[Public school culture]]
* [[Atheism and public schools]]
* [[Parental rights]] (focusing on the rights of parents to control the education, upbringing and discipline of their children)
* [[Education in the United Kingdom]]
* [[Essay:Worst Liberal Falsehoods in School]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Liberalism}}

==External links==
*[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1610/466/Dumb_As_A_Rock:_You_Will_Be_Absolutely_Amazed_At_The_Things_That_U.S._High_School_Students_Do_Not_Know.html Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know]
*[http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/28/9-notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews 8 Bizarre Teacher Scandals You Won't Believe]

[[Category:Schools]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Al Gore

2017-02-09T00:18:32Z

ChristianAdvocate: removing unnecessary words and nonfactual statements

Talk:Pro-life

2017-02-09T00:15:39Z

ChristianAdvocate:

__TOC__

== Death penalty ==
One question: If you all claim to be pro-life, then why do you support the death penalty. Everyone has a sacred right to life, and it is a cardinal sin to take it away from any human being, punishable by damnation in Hell. [[User:ChristianAdvocate|ChristianAdvocate]] ([[User talk:ChristianAdvocate|talk]]) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (EST)

==
Could someone please explain ''why'' the reason for the term "pro-life" is "liberal bias"? Especially when said reason (life begins at conception) is surely in accordiace with Conservapedia thinking?
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 11:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The claim that the Democratic party wishes to have no legal restrictions placed on abortion is just plain wrong. [[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 18:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

No mention of abortion clinic bombings/car-into-smashings? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)

"Pro-Abortion"? Come on now, please. That's just offensive. Most Liberals are as "pro-abortion" as most Conservatives are "pro-crusading". Can the statement regarding that please be revised? Thinking that Liberals enjoy killing babies is disgustingly ignorant. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 16:49, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Then what are these people doing? Are they removing mere lumps of flesh? We say they are killing babies, which is exactly the case, and the "pro-abortion" crowd is working tooth and nail to defend that very thing. THAT is the offensive part. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, but I prefer to consider myself and my peers as "pro-choice", because it sums up my beliefs. I do not ''enjoy killing babies'', I simply agree with a woman's right to chose. Chosing to have an abortion or not could be the most difficult decision a human being could possibly make, and under most circumstances, I do not agree with it. But I think that the foster care system is broken, and that the child would not be given a proper, fair, or quality chance at life. I don't think that people sitting in a large room in Washington have a right to tell a woman what to do regarding the most important part of her life.
::Most (''and I mean nearly all'') people who are not "pro-life" are "pro-choice". They do not like abortions, but believe that it is not their place to make the decision. I just do not think that the statement about "pro-abortion" vs. "pro-choice" is appropriate.
:::The point is, when that certain someone who is pro-choice excercises that choice, a dead baby is the result each and every time. The baby has no choice, no right to choose, no right to live at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::::Of course, liberals dispute that the life of the fetus begins at conception. This seems to be an intransigent point on both sides, as for one side it's religious, and for the other, it's scientific. I respect both positions (I myself am pro-choice) and I can't say that characterizing one's opposition pejoratively is a civil debate tactic.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok, so we disagree, I understand. I would just like to know if it would be ok to reword the section regarding the "pro-abortion" statement. I find it offensive and not an appropriate way to prove your point.[[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 13:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
== Remove statement? ==

Can the following statement be removed?
:"Due to rulings by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the [[United States]] allows abortions at virtually any time in pregnancy. Many state [[government]]s even pay for abortions using taxpayer dollars."
It would be relevant to the [[abortion]] article, but I don't see the relation to "pro-life". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Edit war ==

Can we have some explanations about the edit war? I agree with the last edit, which was reverted (see above). As for what the SC cases actually said, why don't we find a reference either way instead of just reverting each other. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== The catholic church is not against death penalty ==

Cathecism:

"Preserving the common good of society requires that the offender be deprived of the possibilities of harming someone. In this respect, the traditional teaching of the Church has recognized as a fundamental right and duty of legitimate public authority to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crimes, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY"

:You make an excellent point, and I've edited the entry accordingly. Feel free to edit it further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Perhaps you want to use the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM current version of the catechism]:
::'''2266''' The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

::'''2267''' The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
::"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
::"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The Catholic Church has not embraced [[pacifism]], nor has it equated capital punishment to [[abortion]]. While the passage you cite has caused some to claim that the Catholic Church has reversed its longstanding support for capital punishment, there has not been a fully explained shift in theology about this. Even the above quote does not preclude capital punishment that does not deprive the offender "definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== I clarified this page. ==

I knew that the decision you mentioned was ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', so I made that clear, because Conservapedia has an article on that. I would call that a quality edit. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]''Keeping it trustworthy and free of [[liberal bias]] since 2012.''

== Death Penalty? ==

Hi, I'm not really familiar with U.S. politics but would opposition to the death penalty be considered pro-life? I'll have a look for sources, but if it is could someone please add it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 05:24, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Pro-life

2017-02-09T00:15:14Z

ChristianAdvocate:

__TOC__

== Death penalty ==
One question: If you all claim to be pro-life, then why do you support the death penalty. Everyone has a sacred right to life, and it is a cardinal sin to take it away from any human being, punishable by damnation in Hell.

==
Could someone please explain ''why'' the reason for the term "pro-life" is "liberal bias"? Especially when said reason (life begins at conception) is surely in accordiace with Conservapedia thinking?
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 11:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The claim that the Democratic party wishes to have no legal restrictions placed on abortion is just plain wrong. [[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 18:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

No mention of abortion clinic bombings/car-into-smashings? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)

"Pro-Abortion"? Come on now, please. That's just offensive. Most Liberals are as "pro-abortion" as most Conservatives are "pro-crusading". Can the statement regarding that please be revised? Thinking that Liberals enjoy killing babies is disgustingly ignorant. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 16:49, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Then what are these people doing? Are they removing mere lumps of flesh? We say they are killing babies, which is exactly the case, and the "pro-abortion" crowd is working tooth and nail to defend that very thing. THAT is the offensive part. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, but I prefer to consider myself and my peers as "pro-choice", because it sums up my beliefs. I do not ''enjoy killing babies'', I simply agree with a woman's right to chose. Chosing to have an abortion or not could be the most difficult decision a human being could possibly make, and under most circumstances, I do not agree with it. But I think that the foster care system is broken, and that the child would not be given a proper, fair, or quality chance at life. I don't think that people sitting in a large room in Washington have a right to tell a woman what to do regarding the most important part of her life.
::Most (''and I mean nearly all'') people who are not "pro-life" are "pro-choice". They do not like abortions, but believe that it is not their place to make the decision. I just do not think that the statement about "pro-abortion" vs. "pro-choice" is appropriate.
:::The point is, when that certain someone who is pro-choice excercises that choice, a dead baby is the result each and every time. The baby has no choice, no right to choose, no right to live at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:17, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::::Of course, liberals dispute that the life of the fetus begins at conception. This seems to be an intransigent point on both sides, as for one side it's religious, and for the other, it's scientific. I respect both positions (I myself am pro-choice) and I can't say that characterizing one's opposition pejoratively is a civil debate tactic.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok, so we disagree, I understand. I would just like to know if it would be ok to reword the section regarding the "pro-abortion" statement. I find it offensive and not an appropriate way to prove your point.[[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 13:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
== Remove statement? ==

Can the following statement be removed?
:"Due to rulings by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], the [[United States]] allows abortions at virtually any time in pregnancy. Many state [[government]]s even pay for abortions using taxpayer dollars."
It would be relevant to the [[abortion]] article, but I don't see the relation to "pro-life". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Edit war ==

Can we have some explanations about the edit war? I agree with the last edit, which was reverted (see above). As for what the SC cases actually said, why don't we find a reference either way instead of just reverting each other. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== The catholic church is not against death penalty ==

Cathecism:

"Preserving the common good of society requires that the offender be deprived of the possibilities of harming someone. In this respect, the traditional teaching of the Church has recognized as a fundamental right and duty of legitimate public authority to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crimes, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY"

:You make an excellent point, and I've edited the entry accordingly. Feel free to edit it further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Perhaps you want to use the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM current version of the catechism]:
::'''2266''' The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

::'''2267''' The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
::"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
::"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The Catholic Church has not embraced [[pacifism]], nor has it equated capital punishment to [[abortion]]. While the passage you cite has caused some to claim that the Catholic Church has reversed its longstanding support for capital punishment, there has not been a fully explained shift in theology about this. Even the above quote does not preclude capital punishment that does not deprive the offender "definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:53, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== I clarified this page. ==

I knew that the decision you mentioned was ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', so I made that clear, because Conservapedia has an article on that. I would call that a quality edit. [[User:DavidCalman|David]][[User talk:DavidCalman|Calman]]''Keeping it trustworthy and free of [[liberal bias]] since 2012.''

== Death Penalty? ==

Hi, I'm not really familiar with U.S. politics but would opposition to the death penalty be considered pro-life? I'll have a look for sources, but if it is could someone please add it.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 05:24, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conversion therapy

2017-02-09T00:12:25Z

ChristianAdvocate:

==Does it really work?==
Many ''scientific'' sources, such as [http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf this one], suggest that conversion therapy is completely ineffective and only serves to make people appear heterosexual. People undergoing conversion therapy are often brutally harmed in the process and mentally traumatized. [[User:ChristianAdvocate|ChristianAdvocate]] ([[User talk:ChristianAdvocate|talk]]) 19:12, 8 February 2017 (EST)

==Proposed Changes==
In the very near future , I'd like to expand the article to include some more detail of techniques (the article in its current form is not very informative). I'd do it now but it requires research to fully flesh it out complete with citations. I planned to include a detailed list of common techniques and a bit more information on the reasons given why much of the medical community is not in favor of these techniques. My question is....am I allowed to make it as detailed as possible (no matter where the data takes me) or must I follow guidelines to ensure that it is presented in the brightest light possible? --DavidS 14:56, 21 December 2013 (EST)

{{unprotected|29 December 2007|Ed Poor}}
I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 1==

This is flawed citation, '''American Psychiatric Association''', [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reparative_therapy&diff=128816&oldid=122468] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, '''will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

:Also, we need to distinguish between "[[brainwashing]]" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, I disagree.

:Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am [[intolerance|intollerent]] of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something ''other than what it says'', or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, ''before'' using them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

::The desire to make the source '''seem''' to say what you want it to say ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the [[Deceit]] talk page is the best example yet. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=126167&oldid=126157] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm] it quickly became obvious ''why'' this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I ''personally'' get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Paul_Wolfowitz Full discussion]). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

::I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

::There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

::I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] Let's be fair about this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can ''personally'' attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 2==

*''the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.''<ref>[http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282 Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda]</ref>
Neither citation, the original ''Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda'', or what it is quoting from, [http://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy], use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
:*"Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
:*"Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] ''the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens.''" (2001, 83)
:I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a ''prima facie'' impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*''most authorities ''
**Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==
*''the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref>
Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear ==

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book [[Dr. Laura]] endorsed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Not Any Scientific Reasoning" ==
You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming ''arguendo'' no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Gender identity disorder]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not what the DSM IV says. [http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a ''subset'' of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does ''not'' argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
: I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the <s>opposite</s> sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant ''unite with the same sex'', of course. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in ''some'' people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
#Gender ID disorder ''is'' a mental illness
#According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
#Gender ID disorder is ''not'' the "gay gene"
#Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*''According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay ''
:Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So we can rule out [[asexual]]s then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under '''Diagnostic Features'''). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone ''other than'' homosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705
:I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

:1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

::What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.

:::If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would '''not''' travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

:2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

:3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

:4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

:5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the [[Gender identity disorder]] article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and '''surgery is compulsory''', and '''paid for by the state'''." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11423] ''In fact,'' the underlying document '''contradicts''' what you have claimed:
:*state health organisation '''may''' also subsidise...
:*...one such theologian ...is even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the '''judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis'''... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...

:This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15513 I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.

::To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease ''or'' disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as [[activism]]. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.

:::Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes ==

::::The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

::::Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

::::The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International ''in fact'' says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,

:::::''reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind.''...
:::::Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with ''Agencie France Presse'' as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/]
:::::I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. ==

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy? ==

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? [[User:Danbarker|Danbarker]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Umm, ''What'' "illness"? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. [[Gender identity disorder]] is one, [[Homophobia]] is another. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of ''Sexual orientation dysphoria''. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the [[anthropogenic global warming]] advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see [[IPCC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor's recent edits. ==

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "'''Reparative Therapy''' is the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Arguments of opponents==
Cut from article:

*Opponents of reparative therapy characterize it as the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection and claim that it is based on the idea that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]].

*[[Richard Cohen]] says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical [[gay agenda]] tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:
*Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see [[free will]]) in regard to sexual acts.
*Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Excellent summary of opponent's approach==

----
Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mystery%3AWhere_is_Hell%3F&diff=628725&oldid=628667 here], but the substance follows. {{cquote|Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)}}
An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
----

I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Will science examine the issue?==

The primary argument '''against''' reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.

Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.

Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting '''one''' person is flawed:
#One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
#The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.

We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.

Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.

The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is '''by no means''' evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific [[bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Hatred of Father ==

This idea of homosexuality being about a man's hatred of his father sounds a bit Freudian to me. Perhaps it should be made clear that the idea is not actually taken seriously here in case we come across as Freud-lovers. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 16:51, 21 February 2014 (EST)

:The [[Prodigal Son]] predates [[Sigmund Freud]] by about 1900 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 21 February 2014 (EST)

::It still sounds Freudian to me. I see nothing about homosexuality, or even hatred for that matter, in the Prodigal Son. Furthermore the interpretation in the linked article points out that it wasn't literally his father that the story was about, unless the son in the story was actually Jesus. Surely Jesus wasn't actually saying, "I used to be - I mean my friend used to be a screw-up when I - I mean he - left his dad's house ... long story short this unnamed friend of mine is an ex-gay."

==Exodus==

did exodus close down shouldn't the references be deleted? --[[User:Wallywally|Wallywally]] ([[User talk:Wallywally|talk]]) 20:27, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Talk:Conversion therapy

2017-02-09T00:11:40Z

ChristianAdvocate:

==Does it really work?==
Many ''scientific'' sources, such as [http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf this one], suggest that conversion therapy is completely ineffective and only serves to make people appear heterosexual. People undergoing conversion therapy are often brutally harmed in the process and mentally traumatized.

==Proposed Changes==
In the very near future , I'd like to expand the article to include some more detail of techniques (the article in its current form is not very informative). I'd do it now but it requires research to fully flesh it out complete with citations. I planned to include a detailed list of common techniques and a bit more information on the reasons given why much of the medical community is not in favor of these techniques. My question is....am I allowed to make it as detailed as possible (no matter where the data takes me) or must I follow guidelines to ensure that it is presented in the brightest light possible? --DavidS 14:56, 21 December 2013 (EST)

{{unprotected|29 December 2007|Ed Poor}}
I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 1==

This is flawed citation, '''American Psychiatric Association''', [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reparative_therapy&diff=128816&oldid=122468] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, '''will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.

:Also, we need to distinguish between "[[brainwashing]]" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, I disagree.

:Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am [[intolerance|intollerent]] of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something ''other than what it says'', or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, ''before'' using them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.

::The desire to make the source '''seem''' to say what you want it to say ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the [[Deceit]] talk page is the best example yet. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=126167&oldid=126157] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm] it quickly became obvious ''why'' this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I ''personally'' get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Paul_Wolfowitz Full discussion]). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!

::I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.

::There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.

::I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs] Let's be fair about this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can ''personally'' attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 2==

*''the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.''<ref>[http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282 Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda]</ref>
Neither citation, the original ''Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda'', or what it is quoting from, [http://www.narth.com/docs/cases.html Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy], use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
:*"Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
:*"Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] ''the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens.''" (2001, 83)
:I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a ''prima facie'' impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
*''most authorities ''
**Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Example 3==
*''the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref>
Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear ==

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book [[Dr. Laura]] endorsed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Not Any Scientific Reasoning" ==
You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming ''arguendo'' no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Gender identity disorder]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not what the DSM IV says. [http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a ''subset'' of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does ''not'' argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
: I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the <s>opposite</s> sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant ''unite with the same sex'', of course. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in ''some'' people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
#Gender ID disorder ''is'' a mental illness
#According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
#Gender ID disorder is ''not'' the "gay gene"
#Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
#Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
*''According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay ''
:Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[http://www.mental-health-today.com/gender/dsm.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So we can rule out [[asexual]]s then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under '''Diagnostic Features'''). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone ''other than'' homosexuals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705
:I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

:1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

::What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.

:::If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would '''not''' travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

:2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

:3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

:4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

:5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the [[Gender identity disorder]] article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and '''surgery is compulsory''', and '''paid for by the state'''." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11423] ''In fact,'' the underlying document '''contradicts''' what you have claimed:
:*state health organisation '''may''' also subsidise...
:*...one such theologian ...is even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the '''judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis'''... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...

:This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15513 I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.

::To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease ''or'' disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as [[activism]]. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.

:::Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes ==

::::The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.

::::Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

::::The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International ''in fact'' says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,

:::::''reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind.''...
:::::Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with ''Agencie France Presse'' as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/]
:::::I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. ==

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy? ==

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? [[User:Danbarker|Danbarker]] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Umm, ''What'' "illness"? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. [[Gender identity disorder]] is one, [[Homophobia]] is another. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of ''Sexual orientation dysphoria''. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::::There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?[[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the [[human mind]] is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the [[brain]]? What about the human [[soul]]? If there is [[life after death]], then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the [[anthropogenic global warming]] advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see [[IPCC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor's recent edits. ==

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "'''Reparative Therapy''' is the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Arguments of opponents==
Cut from article:

*Opponents of reparative therapy characterize it as the idea that [[homosexuality]] can be cured by prayer and reflection and claim that it is based on the idea that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]].

*[[Richard Cohen]] says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical [[gay agenda]] tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:
*Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see [[free will]]) in regard to sexual acts.
*Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Excellent summary of opponent's approach==

----
Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mystery%3AWhere_is_Hell%3F&diff=628725&oldid=628667 here], but the substance follows. {{cquote|Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the [http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide] in the victims of this treatment ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exst.htm#sch see?]). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/09/07/the-horrific-evils-of-reparative-therapy-and-its-unsurprising-adherents/ read the facts] on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)}}
An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)
----

I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Will science examine the issue?==

The primary argument '''against''' reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.

Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.

Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting '''one''' person is flawed:
#One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
#The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.

We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.

Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.

The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is '''by no means''' evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific [[bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Hatred of Father ==

This idea of homosexuality being about a man's hatred of his father sounds a bit Freudian to me. Perhaps it should be made clear that the idea is not actually taken seriously here in case we come across as Freud-lovers. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 16:51, 21 February 2014 (EST)

:The [[Prodigal Son]] predates [[Sigmund Freud]] by about 1900 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 21 February 2014 (EST)

::It still sounds Freudian to me. I see nothing about homosexuality, or even hatred for that matter, in the Prodigal Son. Furthermore the interpretation in the linked article points out that it wasn't literally his father that the story was about, unless the son in the story was actually Jesus. Surely Jesus wasn't actually saying, "I used to be - I mean my friend used to be a screw-up when I - I mean he - left his dad's house ... long story short this unnamed friend of mine is an ex-gay."

==Exodus==

did exodus close down shouldn't the references be deleted? --[[User:Wallywally|Wallywally]] ([[User talk:Wallywally|talk]]) 20:27, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Liberal

2017-02-08T23:54:19Z

ChristianAdvocate: Find a source for your definition, then put it in

Liberal

2017-02-08T23:48:48Z

ChristianAdvocate:

Talk:Conservative

2017-02-08T23:44:03Z

ChristianAdvocate:

{{protected|TK}}
 

==Definition==
While the definition is clearly accurate, much to the dismay of libtards, it needs sources, no? The best way to put liberals to shame is to support the definition with evidence and show that conservatism is practically synonymous with being a good person.

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

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

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

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

== Inaccurate information ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rise of the Moral Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty and Morality

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

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

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

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

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

'''[[BNP]]'''

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

== Liberal List. ==

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

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

No in fact all the BNP wants it to secure Britain from the massive waves of illegal immigration.

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

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

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

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

== Evolution ==

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

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
****Interesting, it seems you therefore support affirmative action towards those who hold conservative views. The article on this very site about the subject is extremely critical of affirmative action, and yet here it is being basically said that the conservative view is unable to compete in a marketplace of free ideas. Very disapointing! - Colduck77
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

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

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

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

::Ironic, isn't it? I like the death penalty/abortion paradox, too (for the record, I oppose both). --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:19, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::: That's a "paradox" only for people who can't see the difference between punishing someone who's guilty compared to punishing someone who is innocent. [[Materialist]]s and [[utilitarians]] often have trouble recognizing the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I see an inconsistency in both the "liberal" and "conservative" views on this issue. Not only does it not make sense to support abortion and oppose the death penalty (especially in light of what you've mentioned about innocence and guilt), but it also makes little sense to spend such a great deal of effort supporting the idea of a "right to life" and a "culture of life" if you also advocate establishing a precedent wherein execution is superior to forgiveness and rehabilitation.

::::In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "cases of absolute necessity for suppression [execution] of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.[http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html] --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 21:08, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::Opposition to the death penalty is a way to try to deny [[Hell]]. But there's no denying it, as any rational system of justice requires both. Death penalty on earth is mild punishment compared to the very real Hell described by Jesus. Indeed, Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven.

:::::I don't know why you quote a catechism. I doubt you even accept its basic teachings. The Catholic Church is not Quaker, and it is not pacifist. It has always accepted the death penalty and the justifications for war, and always will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::I quote a catechism to point out that my views are not limited to "materialists" and "utilitarians." Your personal ideas on the matter don't change the fact that the Catholic Church (by papal encyclical, and not by "popular opinion") has expressed that it stands for "near total opposition to the death penalty."[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html]

::::::I would be happy to discuss my religious and political views in greater detail if you feel that they undermine my ability to contribute to this project in a meaningful way. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 14:23, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your quote above ("near opposition ...") is from the [[liberal]] PBS, not from the Church. You should have made that clear. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not quote liberal media as though they are an authority. They are not.

:::::::Catechisms are not infallible. Some do not even state church doctrine correctly. You probably don't even accept key points in the catechism you quote.

:::::::Opposition to the death penalty is a position favored by people who deny the existence of [[Hell]]. Rest assured that no rational system of justice can exist without severe punishment, and the existence of Hell completely logical. Denial of its existence is illogical and pure folly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::In the ''apostolic constituion'' '''[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html fedei depositum]''' His Holiness John Paul II endorses the ''catechism'':

::::::::''The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom! ''

::::::::The ''catechism'' may not stand forever, but it is the ''sure norm for teaching the faith''.
::::::::If you don't like the cathechism, fine. But an ''apostolic constitution'' it's a Papal bull, the highest level of decree issued by a Pope. It even outranks the (better known) Encyclical Letter - the next highest level...
::::::::[[User:GermanLibrarian|GermanLibrarian]] 09:23, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Without Hell, there isn't an ultimate punishment or judgment by God. That serves liberals and atheists just fine in their attempts at relativism, revisionist history and moral equivalence. It is a discredited and transparent line of argument in all circles except those of the radical left and committed atheists. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:12, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

:Well Andy let me come in here. This is the text of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, taken from the Knights of Columbus website:

:"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

:If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

:Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

:This is the true teaching of the Church and it clearly disfavors (though I admit does not completely ban) the death penalty. But how does this disfavoring fit with your view of the death penalty? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:41, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

:: There is a pacifist movement in the Catholic Church, partly designed to confuse the Church's opposition to abortion. This pacifist movement is inconsistent with thousand of years of tradition, and also inconsistent with basic concepts of justice and retribution. Neither the death penalty nor war is justified entirely by "defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." Catholics are not Quakers, and never have been. The Church endorsed the death penalty for heretics, and they were not threatening human lives.

:: All evidence is that the death penalty ''increases'' the possibility of redemption. Retaining a person for the rest of his life in jail often leads to unexpected death or mental illness or dementia without the person fully confessing his sin and requesting redemption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Actually heretics ''were'' threatening lives, ''spiritual'' lives or people's souls. Maybe your claim in your last paragraph is correct (I don't know) but are you saying the Catechism does not accurately represent the teachings of the Church?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:03, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Good point about heretics. But the basic point is this: for 2000 years Christianity had no objection to the death penalty. Not even Jesus objected to the death penalty itself, even though He was unjustly victimized by it.

::::The recent attempt to portray the Catholic Church as being against the death penalty is the result of a liberal movement inside and particularly outside the Church. It can't withstand logic and will not last. Keeping a murderer in jail while his mind degrades beyond the point of redemption is not preferable from a spiritual perspective, and denial of punishment by death is just a proxy for falsely denying the existence of [[Hell]]. The death penalty is merciful compared to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:43, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::''The recent attempt to portray the Catholic Church as being against the death penalty is the result of a liberal movement inside and particularly outside the Church.'' No it's not. The words ''"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."'' are not the words of a liberal theologian and most decidedly not from outside the church. They are the words of Pope John Paul II [http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM], sourced not from a "liberal" website but from the Official Vatican Website. I don't know whether your claim that "(i)t can't withstand logic" refers to the claims that the Church is against the death penalty or to being against the death penalty ''per se''. If the former then the claim is clearly incorrect. If the latter then the Church not only disagrees with your conclusion but with the basis of that conclusion: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person". The Church believes that keeping a murderer in jail '''is''' preferable from a spiritual persapective. [[User:PNeville|PNeville]] 07:23, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

: You cite a statement of political opinion, akin to citing statements by a Pope against a particular war or a proposal by a Pope for the future of the Middle East. Such statements are the result of ongoing discussion about issues and can reflect pressure exerted on the Church by liberals. In this case, the statement was probably not written by the Pope himself, it does not address 2000 years of the opposite view of the Church, and it marks the beginning of discussion rather than the end of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
::It’s not correct to call an Encyclical, or a Catechism, a “political” statement. The Encyclical is addressed to the faithful, and those of “Good Will”. It is an internal document of the Church rather than one seeking to influence matters in the world at large. It is also general, rather than specific. The Pope is not expressing an opinion of “matter X” to people who have an interest or influence, as when he makes a speech about matters in the Middle East. Rather he is writing, qua Pontiff, to express what he deems to be the proper attitude of the Church on the principles of respect for human life.

::Your reference to “2000 years of the opposite view” is confusing, as are the mentions of “pressure…by liberals” and the authorship of the Encyclical. You not only fail to develop the points but it is difficult to see how they are relevant to the issue at hand. A cynic might accuse you of “arguing” by quietly alluding to statements that could not be sustained if expressed openly. The idea that an Encyclical authored by Cardinal Ratzinger, under the instructions of Pope John Paul II, was a diversion from Church teaching to appease liberals is….well this is a family friendly site.[[User:DGosling|DGosling]] 07:47, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Encyclicals are explanations based on logic, and typically do not claim to be specially revealed truth. Encyclicals are considered to be infallible, although obviously they are often undeniably true. But encyclicals cannot detract from infallible or longstanding truths.

:::In this case, the Church has endorsed the death penalty for nearly 2000 years, and not simply to prevent recurrence of a crime. Heretics were cremated for reasons having to do with the nature of their evil, for example, just as the death penalty today applies to deal with particularly heinous evil. The cited phrase from an encyclical does not address this, and should not be read to detract from this long-accepted Church doctrine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 27 May 2009 (EDT

::::Mr Schlafly, are you saying that burning those heretics was the right thing to do? I apologise if I've misunderstood, but what you've written could be interpreted that way.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: CPalmer, you seem to lack an open-mind about it. Check out [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]] and see how well you do. I encourage you to open your mind more and score higher on the test.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Thanks for replying. I'm certainly willing to be open-minded, I just wanted clarification. I find the treatment of heresy over the years quite interesting, since it may have been the church's number one priority at one time but is rarely discussed today. Did you know that in Dante's Inferno, heresy is one of only three sins in Hell that's actually punished with fire?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:36, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Somewhat late, I know, but in response to those arguing against Mr Schlafly's point about liberals putting pressure on the Pope, I should like to point out that the Vatican is situated in Europe, a significantly more liberal place than America, and thus it makes sense that the Pope feels some pressure to give the 'correct' message. [[User:GeorginaD|GeorginaD]] 13:56, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Thanks for your excellent point, Georgina. In this case, the denial of the death penalty lacks explanation of how that denial fits into nearly 2000 years of Catholic Church doctrine, as well as logical analysis. At no time was the death penalty justified merely by preventing future harm by the same person.

:::::::: CPalmer, I welcome your willingness to be open-minded. Can you help us understand why the Catholic Church (and nearly everyone else) supported the death penalty throughout history for heinous crimes? I'm wondering myself, but I'm confident it has to do with eradicating evil. The Church even supported exhuming a heretic to burn his remains, and that certainly was not motivated by a desire to prevent future injury by him!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Thinking about this, it seems the death penalty is something that was present in just about every culture around the world. Therefore the pertinent question is, who first came up with the idea of ''not'' having the death penalty, and why? I know the secularist Cesare Beccaria argued against it in the 18th century; do you know of anybody prior to that?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:50, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Fascinating question. I'm learning from you, and don't know of any prior advocacy against the [[death penalty]]. The entry could benefit from your history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:06, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: You're most welcome! I suppose the purpose of exhuming and burning a dead heretic (I am presuming here that he died of natural causes) was to set an example and show people that he was indeed evil, and that people should not follow his teachings. For every crime, there must be a punishment - everyone is equal under the law, from dictators (Saddam Hussein) to the dead (aforementioned heretic). [[User:GeorginaD|GeorginaD]] 15:49, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: I doubt that was the reason, although I have an open mind about it. The reason of "setting an example" seems to be a product of the modern media, when people are obsessed with publicity. There was no publicity in the Middle Ages. It seems to me that religious people probably made their careful decision out of motivation of expunging evil, and may have even explained it in those terms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: You seem to be correct about the notion of using execution and cremation as a way of "expunging evil." According to Catholic Encyclopedia (please alert me if you deem it too liberal a source), "[t]he nations of modern Europe, as they gradually developed, seemed to have agreed upon the necessity of extirpating all influences and agencies which tended to pervert the faith of the people, or which seemed to them to betray the potency of evil spirits. Therefore, the laws of all these nations provided for the destruction of contumacious unbelievers, teachers of heresy, witches, and sorcerers, by fire." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm] --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:03, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Superb find! You might want to insert that into the [[death penalty]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:06, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

*His Holiness is in fact both a political and spiritual leader. He is subject to the very same pressures, from the left and right, as all ''political leaders''. It is on matters of Faith and/or Morals that Holy Mother Church says his teachings, coming as they do from the True and Inspired Word of God, where Catholics consider him to be infalliable. GeorginaD, you are correct in what you say, but it almost incomprensible, on both sides of the Atlantic, what "conservative" means in the EU and vice-versa. Thankfully Pontiff's have most always ignored termporal clamorings and taken a rather long view, historically speaking. Of course their are notable exceptions, such as John-Paul's intimate knowledge of Communism, and its barbarism, causing him to weigh in on this most recent battle between good and evil. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:28, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

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

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

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

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

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

== Conservative communists?? ==

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

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

== Bulleted list? ==

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

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

== Washington? ==

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

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== The nature of the page ==

It would seem to me that the nature of the page seems to be more in relation to the actual ideology of conservatism than of conservatives in general. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have the introduction rewritten appropriately, and then move this page to an article entitled "Conservatism" (with the appropriate redirection, of course)? [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 21:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Neoconservative? ==

This description sounds more like what a neolibertarian would be. Neoconservatives would support increased government spending (especially on the military) and an interventionist foreign policy based on spreading democracy throughout the world (especially the Middle East). Neolibertarians also support an interventionist foreign policy, though as libertarians, they would support limited government and would be "amoral."

I think there should be "paleoconservative" (Pat Buchanan, etc.), "neoconservative" (Bush, etc.), and "mainstream conservative" (a mix of both ideologies, e.g. Reagan). The same should apply to the article on libertarianism - "paleolibertarian," "neolibertarian," "anarcho-capitalist," (party) "Libertarian," etc.

What do you think? --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 22:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

:Where did this word, "paleoconservative," originate? I am beginning to feel uneasy about it without a source. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

[[The Nation]], 20 October, 1984, according to Lexis-Nexis.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::Ahh, ''The Nation.'' Thank you. Now I have a starting point. If this checks out, we may have sufficient cause to nip this in the bud. Pat Buchanan, as far as I'm aware, does not refer to himself as a "paleoconservative," although I could be wrong. This type of liberal labeling and use of pejoritives may have gone too far already in Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:32, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== "Moral Virtue" ==

I believe that the phrase "moral virtue" is too vague for this article. I am a liberal democrat, and also believe I am morally virtuous, although not in the view of the US Republican party. Is there a perhaps more fair way of saying this? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 15:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Category Addition ==

Can a sysop add "Category: Political ideologies" to this article? Thanks!

== Fox News ==

Fox News is listed on this page as conservative, but I'm not sure if that's correct. I think such an assertion just feeds into the liberal
accusations that Fox is biased (in contrast to the supposedly fair but obviously left-leaning major networks). I would prefer to refer to Fox news as "balanced" or "moderate" rather than "conservative." What do others think? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:Well, technically, moderate still implies a bias. Just one that's generally more agreeable. Balanced might work, though. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 15:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:Could we say that Fox is both unbiased '''and''' conservative? [[User:BibleWisdom|BibleWisdom]] 12:45, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::Fox News might be [[neoconservative]], but it's not particularly conservative.
== UK newspapers ==

Although I agree about the broadcast media (mainly the bbc) I do not believe what you have added about the print media is correct, or supported by the source given. The most popular broadsheet, the telegraph, is a supporter of the conservative party, as is the Times and the Daily Express. From the source provided
<blockquote>
The Times, the UK’s oldest national newspaper, is not the most popular - that accolade falls to the Daily Telegraph, known affectionately as the Daily Torygraph because of the staunch support to the Conservative Party.
</blockquote>
--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 13:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== GWB conservative? ==

"George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is an example of American conservatism, except on immigration, public schools, government spending, and financial bailouts."

This can be rewritten as

"George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is an example of American conservatism, except on EVERYTHING THAT CAN MAKE SOMEONE CONSERVATIVE."

I'm removing the bit about him. Why not cite Reagan as an example? Or Washington?

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 17:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Washington favored a strong national government, raised taxes and suppressed theWhiskey Rebellion. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:02, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Fine. But I think we can agree that Bush isn't the best example of a conservative leader [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 19:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

GWB was a complete disaster for conservatism - JCB

== Fiscal v. Social ==
The difference is pretty significant. Thete are pro-life socialists and libertarians who support homo "marriage." Should we create sub-sections to differentiate the two?--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 19:47, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Support==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&curid=2849&diff=646479&oldid=644664 This] was a good clarification, but what happened to the guy who made the [[Laffer curve]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:28, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

: I agree with Ed, and wonder why that was deleted. I also object to the addition of [[George W. Bush]] as a "conservative". Bush was for big government and regulations, not small government and deregulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

::Bush and Reagan were Republicans, no doubt about that. But Reagan was the quintessential conservative, while Bush seems to have signed a lot of bills that a genuine conservative would have vetoed. I'd like to know what Dubya's role in the [[housing bubble]] was, because I don't think Democrats deserve all the blame. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Federalism ==

Federalism doesn't necessarily refer to the idea that the states should retain more power than the federal government, only to the notion that the states and national government can coexist as sovereign entities with supremacy over their respective domains. "Federalism" ought to be changed to "states' rights" or "limited government." --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:16, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

==Junk science==
Evolution may be bad science, but I'm not sure that rejecting it should be in a list of what conservatives support. Perhaps a second list of "''may also'' support would be good for this and a couple of others. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:56, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

== Is it necessary to trash athiesm as liberal ==

i would grant that this might be out of place, and if so i appologise, but here's my question:
why is religion necessary here? why can't this be a "George Will-type" conservatism, standing for small goverment, always? why can't we be like "hey, let's not strengthen goverment control over our lives by using it to deciede morality?"

why can't we revert back to goldwater conservatism, and leave religion out of it?

== List of Conservative Presidents ==

Adams, Jefferson, Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt ... these were not "conservative" presidents, and least of all Adams, who ran roughshod over the Constitution with his outrageous Sedition Act.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:41, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:How can both Adams and Jefferson have been conservatives? They were polar opposites politically!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Teddy was most definately a progressive.

== Lock the article? ==

The Talk Page has a banner at the top that article "Conservative" is locked, but it isn't. This seems to be the first place pranksters go for. Should you ban it from regular users and instead allow user discussion on the Talk Page? -[[User:Danq|danq]] 20:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:We would rather editors, especially those outside the U.S., be able to edit it, but I have protected it against new users. But thanks for keeping an eye out! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:49, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Calvin Coolidge is a better candidate for the epitome of Conservatism ==

Reagan had many desirable traits in a President, but [[Calvin Coolidge]] is a better candidate for the epitome of conservatism. Every year Coolidge was in office he had a balanced budget. I agree with the conservative Margaret Thatcher that the Soviet Union was not brought down by Reagan's military spending.[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n3_v14/ai_20174382] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:27, 20 November 2010 (EST)

== Conservatives in britain ==

Hey, just noticed that the article states the conservative party in Britain is currently in opposition, however this is not the case. I think the article is locked so I can't changed it myself so can an admin or otherwise please change it? [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 15:42, 22 February 2011 (EST)
: Ah, I see it has been fixed now, thanks whoever fixed it! [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 16:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Fiscal Convervatism vs. Social Conservatism ==

While creating a link at the [[Gary Johnson]] article, I noticed this page has no differentiation between fiscal conservatism (ie low taxes, reducing or eliminating Social Security and Medicare, and cutting government spending) and social conservatism (ie outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage, allowing creationism in schools, etc.) While most Republican Party members fall into both categories and most Democrats fall into neither, many people (including the aforementioned Johnson and most libertarians) only fall into one. I'm not sure how to write an extensive section or two on this, but perhaps someone could. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Bush ==

[[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]] are not mentioned in the section "Nixon, Reagan, and Bush". Please complete it.--12:38, 28 November 2013 (EST)

== Illegal immigration ==

Is it conservative to support the "Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration"? I think a good Christian should support immigration of [[Illegal aliens]]. The bible says: "Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt." (Exodus: 23:9) --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:38, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

Talk:God

2017-02-08T23:40:50Z

ChristianAdvocate:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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



==Sources==
Why is it that this article lacks sources other than the Bible? Despite the clear factual validity of every word of the Bible, shouldn't there be some kind of evidence based in science? After all, science is the clearest path to unequivocal belief in the Lord. [[User:ChristianAdvocate|ChristianAdvocate]] ([[User talk:ChristianAdvocate|talk]]) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (EST)

==Abrahamic religion==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Minor misspelling ==

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

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

== Bias ==
Why do you claim trustworthiness yet try to pass your opinion off as fact? The article should start with "According to Christianity..." because then that wouldn't be biased at all
:Why are you biased against God? Why are you biased against this website? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:32, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Formatting issues ==

Instead of this:

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

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

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

== Prager University ==

I want to put this video in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:57, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Comment and prompt for further work on this page about God. ==

Statements of God are profound and severely important. I advise "Be careful what you hear, for with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and even more. Everyone who has will be given more, and from the one who is given much, much more will be demanded. From whomever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away." Jesus Christ said, "I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God," and clearly explained, "My sheep know my voice and listen to me, and will not follow another but will even run away from the voice of a stranger. I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. Nobody can remove them from my hand. My Father, who is greater than all, has given them to me; nobody can remove them from my Father's hand. The Father and I are one," and "...When they look at me, they do not just see me, but the One who sent me," and "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But even if you do not believe, at least believe the works/miracles that I have done in my Father's Name, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Therefore, Jesus Christ is clearly distinctly not God, but is God's "Only Begotten" Son: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whoever would believe in him will not perish but have eternal life." "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed are those who do not stumble on account of me." (Matthew 11). So to restate: God and Jesus Christ alone are and is Trustworthy. Jesus Christ is not God, but is the Source of Purity to God who alone is Good. His eyes are fire. God calls him "My Presence" and "My Glory", as in "My Presence will go before you," and "Wait here until my Glory passes you by." Jesus Christ is the King of Glory who walks on the water. Do not lead astray those who have not yet seen or heard; the entire duty of a Christian is to point to Jesus Christ, just like God and Jesus Christ are doing. "May they be one in us so that the world may know that you sent me. I have loved them even as you have loved me, and I am sending them into the world as you have sent me into the world." And he explains further; and very succinctly with "My Kingdom is not of this world."

And so specifically, it is not right to presume away from what Jesus Christ explained. '''Jesus Christ is not God''', so do not say that the Father is the Son. And who is the Holy Spirit? Jesus Christ explained: "I am sending you a Counselor who will be with you forever: The Spirit of Truth who will guide you into all of Truth. He will not speak on his own, but will speak only what he hears. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him, but you will know him and he will live within and among you. [...]"

I am paraphrasing; please familiarize yourself with these passages according to texts that have been properly preserved (I recommend Zondervan's NIV 1984 publication).

So now, please make the following changes to this page whose topic is most important.

God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven).
'''''Response''''': "Heaven is my throne and the Earth is my footstool." "But I will tell you who to fear: fear him who, after the death of the body, has the power to throw both the body and the soul into Hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." "No one has gone into Heaven except for the one who came from Heaven." And Jesus Christ, in the flesh, is seated at the right hand of God. And he said, "All authority over Heaven and Earth has been given to me." So you should simply omit the second phrase.

'''''Revision''''':
God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist.

And really, the whole first paragraph should say:

God is the God of Life who is the Sovereign Lord God Almighty whose throne is Heaven and whose footstool is The Earth.
He is Spirit and unseen. He is the only true God; he created and creates all that ever was and is and will be, for he holds Existence within himself.
As it is written, "Nothing can happen unless the Lord God Almighty has decreed it." He is ultimately in control and has the only real say as to what is and what happens within Existence.
"As the stars are higher than the Earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than your ways."
"Do not boast of wisdom, strength, or riches, but if you boast at all, boast only that you understand and know me, that I am the Lord who exercises Kindness, Justice and Righteousness
on The Earth, for in these things I delight."

But now I'm telling you people don't even know what Justice means. Justice means working for the betterment of everyone involved in a situation. It is to make better for all parties involved. It is the antithesis of revenge, where one is harmed. And what is Righteousness? Jesus Christ is Righteousness. There is none other.

You could then go on to explain how Jesus Christ is the Way to God, the Absolute Truth from God's Mouth, and Life and the Author of Life, the Source of Purity to God, The Good Shepherd, The Bright Morning Star, and so on. And you should explain the thoughts of God: what God does and what his work is as revealed to us by Jesus Christ the Teacher. And Jesus Christ is also working.

"And this is eternal life: that they would know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ who you have sent."

--[[User:Liquid Fire|Liquid Fire]] ([[User talk:Liquid Fire|talk]]) 09:13, 9 September 2015 (EDT)