https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=ChristianFaithConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T15:00:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=246370Talk:Muhammad2007-07-23T17:38:05Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Half right. And some good points. The question is how do you define extremist? If 20% of the population of planet earth are "extremist" by virtue of the culture and civilization they are born in, than we can probably conclude more than 20% of the planet earth's population are extremist, and possibly not even by virtue of their cultural upbringing, but something inherent in human nature.<br />
<br />
:::This whole hypothesis is probably not supportable by any kind of rational or reasoned investigation--except it may be believed and propagated by ''other'' extremists. Hence you take a big risk offering that theory here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::When put into the context of "should there be an image of Mohammed"? -there is very little risk. We are allowing the dictates of <i>their</i> society and their values to affect how we present information in our society. In our society -presenting images is the norm. We recognize that what images convey is more than "idolatry". (The reason that images of Mohammed are forbidden is to prevent Idol worship). Furthermore, the image that is posted is relatively tame and respectful [Image:Maome.jpg] -not like the one that I would post. Is there another reason that you aren't posting the image? -Did you get a bomb threat? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 19:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
more on "Sunni" http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=83937 [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=246351Honor killing2007-07-23T17:21:01Z<p>ChristianFaith: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Honor killing''' is the barbaric practice of murdering a woman in order to restore a family's "honour" after the woman had "dishonored" it through contact with a man other than her immediate family. Especially distasteful to Western [[Christians]], [[Jews]] and also most [[Atheists]] and [[Agnostics]], is the idea that even a victim of [[rape]] is considered to have brought dishonor and will be punished in this way. <ref>Anthropologist [[James Emery]] wrote, "[[Palestinian]] culture continues to equate the value of a woman's life to her inviolable [[purity]]. Whatever her progress, ancient [[tradition]]s still engulf her. Should she become the unfortunate victim of rumor or [[rape]], she'll be sacrificed, just as her ancestors who swept across the [[Arabian Desert]] [[sacrifice]]d sheep and other animals in the name of [[honor]] and [[Islam]]." (World&I magazine, May 2003, Page 190) </ref><br />
<br />
The practice is especially prevalent in countries which have little contact (or poor relations) with the Christianized West. <br />
<br />
*"Mahmud Ahmad Ghazi, director of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, was interviewed in a BBC film on the honor killing of women, in which [[Pakistan]] has established a sad record. Ghazi coldly defended those feudal practices as [[Islam]]ic, an opinion Islamic scholars all over the world mostly dispute." (Pakistan Versus the Last Superpower: A Former U.S. Ally Moves Toward Jihadism and Isolation - World&I magazine, March 2001, Page 296)<br />
<br />
*"We know of some women who are pushed to become [[suicide bomber]]s," says Yariv Ovadia, consul for communications and public affairs with the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, California. "If you dishonor your family, you will be killed anyway, so you can save something of your honor by becoming a suicide bomber. (ibid)<br />
<br />
*Honor killings are sanctioned in the [[Koran]] ... in Islamic prophetic tradition and law in general, there is a very strong presumption of women’s chastity along with numerous safeguards to prevent any imputation of unchastity. However if that chastity is broken --the Koran and Hadiths have a strong resolution -death by stoning.<br />
<br />
== Islamic Basis of Honor Killing ==<br />
Koran- 4:15 "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses <b>until death do claim them</b>. Or God ordain for them some (other) way." <ref> Koran 4:15 [http://www.searchquran.org/?k=4:11&t=1&h=off&noar=]</ref><br />
<br />
Sahi Muslim No. 4206: <br />
<br />
"There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. ... And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people <b>and they stoned her</b>. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her." <ref>Hadith of the holy prophet(may peace be upon him) [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4206]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Violence against women]]<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Barbaric practices]]<br />
[[Category:Islamic Religion]]</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Honor_killing&diff=246283Talk:Honor killing2007-07-23T16:18:12Z<p>ChristianFaith: New page: == Honor Killings Sanctioned by Koran == The statement here that Honor Killings are not sanctioned by the Koran is politically correct revisionism. This view has been manufactured for the ...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Honor Killings Sanctioned by Koran ==<br />
The statement here that Honor Killings are not sanctioned by the Koran is politically correct revisionism. This view has been manufactured for the west to "soften" Islam for the public. <br />
<br />
I will correct the text and cite Koranic Verses and hadiths.<br />
<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 12:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=243305Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T23:06:16Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Half right. And some good points. The question is how do you define extremist? If 20% of the population of planet earth are "extremist" by virtue of the culture and civilization they are born in, than we can probably conclude more than 20% of the planet earth's population are extremist, and possibly not even by virtue of their cultural upbringing, but something inherent in human nature.<br />
<br />
:::This whole hypothesis is probably not supportable by any kind of rational or reasoned investigation--except it may be believed and propagated by ''other'' extremists. Hence you take a big risk offering that theory here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::When put into the context of "should there be an image of Mohammed"? -there is very little risk. We are allowing the dictates of <i>their</i> society and their values to affect how we present information in our society. In our society -presenting images is the norm. We recognize that what images convey is more than "idolatry". (The reason that images of Mohammed are forbidden is to prevent Idol worship). Furthermore, the image that is posted is relatively tame and respectful [Image:Maome.jpg] -not like the one that I would post. Is there another reason that you aren't posting the image? -Did you get a bomb threat? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 19:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=243302Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T23:04:34Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Half right. And some good points. The question is how do you define extremist? If 20% of the population of planet earth are "extremist" by virtue of the culture and civilization they are born in, than we can probably conclude more than 20% of the planet earth's population are extremist, and possibly not even by virtue of their cultural upbringing, but something inherent in human nature.<br />
<br />
:::This whole hypothesis is probably not supportable by any kind of rational or reasoned investigation--except it may be believed and propagated by ''other'' extremists. Hence you take a big risk offering that theory here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::When put into the context of "should there be an image of Mohammed"? -there is very little risk. We are allowing the dictates of <i>their</i> society and their values to affect how we present information in our society. In our society -presenting images is the norm. We recognize that what images convey is more than "idolatry". (The reason that images of Mohammed are forbidden is to prevent Idol worship). Furthermore, the image that is posted is relatively tame and respectful [Image:Maome.jpg] -not like the one that I would post. Is there another reason that you aren't posting the image? -Did you get a bomb threat?<br />
<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=243174Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T20:57:07Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Executive_Privilege&diff=243148Executive Privilege2007-07-20T20:30:41Z<p>ChristianFaith: New page: == Synopsis == Executive privilege is the right of the Executive Branch to operate independantly of congress. The first call for executive privilege was made by our founding father Geo...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Synopsis ==<br />
Executive privilege is the right of the [[Executive Branch]] to operate independantly of congress. The first call for executive privilege was made by our founding father George Washington in 1796. Congress demanded documents relating to the Jay treaty and George Washington cited executive privilege.<br />
<br />
This is similar to what is going on with George W. Bush. Liberal congress is trying to interfere with him and he is trying to operate freely from them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html<br />
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290112,00.html</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&diff=243091Talk:Faith2007-07-20T19:45:34Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Main Page */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Biblical Examples ==<br />
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.<br />
<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
== Older Discussions ==<br />
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.<br />
<br />
:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?<br />
<br />
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.<br />
<br />
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref><br />
<br />
1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it<br />
1. relating to God<br />
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ <br />
2. relating to Christ<br />
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God <br />
3. the religious beliefs of Christians<br />
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same <br />
2. fidelity, faithfulness<br />
1. the character of one who can be relied on <br />
<br />
----<br />
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sources:''' <references/><br />
<br />
==American Heritage Dictionary==<br />
says:<br />
<br />
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]<br />
<br />
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."<br />
<br />
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"<br />
<br />
::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.<br />
<br />
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes). <br />
<br />
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. <br />
<br />
::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."<br />
<br />
::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.<br />
<br />
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Re: faith in other religions ==<br />
<br />
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.<br />
<br />
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******<br />
<br />
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” <br />
<br />
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:<br />
<br />
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)<br />
<br />
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: <br />
<br />
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.<br />
<br />
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.<br />
<br />
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982<br />
<br />
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.<br />
<br />
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. <br />
<br />
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none<br />
<br />
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.<br />
<br />
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. <br />
<br />
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”<br />
<br />
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==<br />
<br />
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Unlocking Faith==<br />
<br />
I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Faith is NOT unique ==<br />
<br />
To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.<br />
<br />
However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one. <br />
<br />
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.<br />
<br />
I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.<br />
<br />
== Tautology! ==<br />
<br />
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."<br />
<br />
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.<br />
<br />
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br />
:Romans 10:17:<br />
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard <u>through the word of Christ.</u> [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bad, bad, bad==<br />
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.<br />
<br />
==Alternate version==<br />
<br />
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. <br />
<br />
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.<br />
<br />
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==<br />
<br />
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.<br />
:::But as you will see from the [[physical science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.<br />
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.<br />
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Faith in Literature ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Faith&diff=243087Talk:Faith2007-07-20T19:44:43Z<p>ChristianFaith: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Biblical Examples ==<br />
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.<br />
<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
== Older Discussions ==<br />
I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.<br />
<br />
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.<br />
<br />
:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?<br />
<br />
The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.<br />
<br />
'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref><br />
<br />
1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it<br />
1. relating to God<br />
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ <br />
2. relating to Christ<br />
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God <br />
3. the religious beliefs of Christians<br />
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same <br />
2. fidelity, faithfulness<br />
1. the character of one who can be relied on <br />
<br />
----<br />
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sources:''' <references/><br />
<br />
==American Heritage Dictionary==<br />
says:<br />
<br />
'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]<br />
<br />
In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."<br />
<br />
::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"<br />
<br />
::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.<br />
<br />
:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes). <br />
<br />
:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group. <br />
<br />
::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."<br />
<br />
::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.<br />
<br />
:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Re: faith in other religions ==<br />
<br />
I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.<br />
<br />
Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******<br />
<br />
The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.” <br />
<br />
Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:<br />
<br />
3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)<br />
<br />
Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were: <br />
<br />
4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.<br />
<br />
4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.<br />
<br />
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982<br />
<br />
So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.<br />
<br />
The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith. <br />
<br />
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none<br />
<br />
In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.<br />
<br />
The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here. <br />
<br />
The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”<br />
<br />
==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==<br />
<br />
ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Unlocking Faith==<br />
<br />
I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Faith is NOT unique ==<br />
<br />
To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.<br />
<br />
However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one. <br />
<br />
Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.<br />
<br />
I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.<br />
<br />
== Tautology! ==<br />
<br />
Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."<br />
<br />
FAITH is not unique to Christianity.<br />
<br />
CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Main Page ==<br />
<br />
Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br />
:Romans 10:17<br />
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard <u>through the word of Christ.</u> [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bad, bad, bad==<br />
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.<br />
<br />
==Alternate version==<br />
<br />
'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith. <br />
<br />
Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.<br />
<br />
==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==<br />
<br />
I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.<br />
:::But as you will see from the [[physical science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.<br />
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.<br />
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Faith in Literature ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=243073Faith2007-07-20T19:37:54Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Biblical examples */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Faith''' is a uniquely [[Christian]] concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good. Faith is expressed in [[Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref><br />
<br />
Faith embodies more than belief in two significant respects. First, faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome, as in [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith or in overcoming a personal fear. Second, faith implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing.<br />
<br />
Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.<br />
<br />
Faith is emphasized in Christianity and is unknown or unrecognized by other religions or belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Biblical examples==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11. It states: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)</ref><br />
Jesus observed the powerful healing faith of a Roman centurion: "Assuredly I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!" (Matthew 8:10)<br />
<br />
[[Paul]] indicated that faith itself is a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 <i>For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit</i><br />
<br />
Other references are from [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped. <br />
Genesis 22:12<br />
<i>"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." </i><br />
<br />
==Other Definitions and Religions==<br />
<br />
Outside of Christianity, faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref> <br />
<br />
Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.<br />
<br />
In the Koran, the concept of submission to Allah is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.<br />
<br />
==Faith in Literature==<br />
<br />
Missionaries spread their faith to other countries, such as [[China]], and the [[Congo]]. A primary example of ideal missionary behaviour is exhibited in The ''Poisonwood Bible'', by Barbara Kingsolver. The protaganist, Nathan, attempts to spread his faith to the other Conglonese until his dying words.<br />
<br />
Missionaries have been known to impress their faith on others forcefully, such as shortly after the [[Boxer Rebellion]] in China. The novel ''Spring Moon'' by Bette Bao Lord is a fact-based novel about the fearless [[martyr]]s of the Christian faith. Even though the Chinese were attacking them on the streets, the missionaries still pursued them in their attempts to create a greater following.{{fact|was "to create a greater following" the goal??}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:religion]]<br />
[[Category:philosophy]]</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&diff=242934Talk:Ann Coulter2007-07-20T18:10:51Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives */</p>
<hr />
<div>==General comments==<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.<br />
<br />
Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.<br />
<br />
[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.<br />
<br />
Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:<br />
<br />
::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....<br />
<br />
::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools. <br />
<br />
:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate&mdash;or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual." <br />
<br />
:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.<br />
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}<br />
<br />
It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.<br />
<br />
This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."<br />
<br />
This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ann Coulter is a political entertainer. She knows this is true and the joke is on those who take her seriously. For instance, she recently made a joke that she's made more money off her comments about wishing Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack than he has made attacking her. She's laughing all the way to the bank. That said, conservapedia has a conversative, Christian bias. To lionize Coutler is to praise someone who is actually the enemy of religous conservatism. Her behavior does not represent any of the kind and noble virtues set forth in the Torah or the Christian bible. She doesn't represent intelligent, mature discussion of issues void of schoolyard antics. Her principle is to make money off controversy. Like a neo-con Rosie O'Donnell, happy to reap the rewards of a society voracious for public spectacle. I'm a democrat and more than happy to call a spade a spade, whether they be a republican or a democrat. To be taken seriously, you must be honest and live your word.<br />
<br />
I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.<br />
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ann's next book==<br />
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:<br />
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::The liberals are for free speech <u>unless</u> it is a conservative voicing their views <u>not</u> using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<references/><br />
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Category ==<br />
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.<br />
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.<br />
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.<br />
<br />
== Biographical data ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc. <br />
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?<br />
<br />
:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Total Fag" ==<br />
<br />
For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual. <br />
<br />
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?<br />
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.<br />
<br />
So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.<br />
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.<br />
<br />
== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==<br />
<br />
Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.<br />
<br />
::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.<br />
<br />
::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points. <br />
<br />
::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think Coulter is Funny. Liberals are allowed to have their Al Frankens -why can't we have our comedians. Of course, some of her language is inappropriate for small children. However, for adults -she is just fine.<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 14:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Schoolyard taunt?==<br />
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt." <br />
<br />
Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Offensive manner==<br />
<br />
We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say. <br />
<br />
But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:<br />
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive". <br />
<br />
That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Comedic" ==<br />
<br />
The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.<br />
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==<br />
<br />
I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source. <br />
<br />
If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== interesting artlcle ==<br />
<br />
As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Strong following? ==<br />
<br />
While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:<br />
<br />
"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".<br />
<br />
Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.<br />
<br />
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]<br />
<br />
"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9] <br />
<br />
A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Jersey girls ==<br />
<br />
''moved from [[User talk:Ed Poor]]''<br />
<br />
"Ad Hominem" Attacks:<br />
<br />
"Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem or "to the person", rather than against what she is saying. It is typical of liberals to change the subject and refuse to debate issues but rather to distract people with side issues or outright irrelevancies."<br />
<br />
::Okay Ed, let's see if I've got this straight. Ann Coulter describing the Jersey Widows as "harpies," suggesting they hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY before they get too old, and announcing that they are "enjoying" their husbands deaths is NOT an ad hominem attack on these widows -- But objecting to her insulting these women in such a gross, deeply personal manner IS an ad hominem attack?<br />
<br />
::Care to explain this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[Ad hominem]] means against the person, not against what they're saying. If the Jersey widows have presented a POV on topic X, and if Coulter wore to say that their POV is wrong or should be ignored because of personal attribute Y, then she'd be making an ''ad hominem'' argument. If so, you should describe all that in the [[Ann Coulter]] article. Be sure to state whet the widows' POV is first, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(afterthought) I just found out the the phrase "ad hominem" is also used simply as a synonym for "[[personal attack]]". It does not have to be a fallacy, it can simply be bad manners. Perhaps this is the sense in which you were using the term? If so, please be clear. <br />
<br />
We need to distinguish between (1) [[ad hominem argment]] (sometimes expressed in Latin as ''argument ad hominem'') and (2) a [[personal attack]], e.g., a gratuitious swipe, an insult, etc. If you plan on staying around in this encyclopedia project, you must be prepared at a moment's notice to explain yourself more clearly. Using straightforward, unambiguous terminology is always better than using vague language, especially when it's about a hot topic. Clear terms can cool things down. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:12, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, Ed, I know that "Ad Hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying." And yes, ad hominems quite frequently take the form of a personal attack, as Ann Coulter's ad hominem against the Jersey Girls most certainly does. It therefore qualifies as both a fallacy and bad manners. What do you consider unclear about this? What do you consider puzzling or ambiguous about the inappropriateness of a passage in which Ann Coulter's refers to these women as "harpies" who are enjoying their husband's deaths, makes the disgusting suggestion that they pose for Playboy before they get too old, and suggests that their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them anyway? Do you really need me to explain to you WHY this passage of Ann Coulter's qualifies as both an ad hominem attack and an outrageous and inappropriate personal attack on them?<br />
<br />
:::The Jersey girls roused Coulter's ire by insisting on the formation of the 9/11 commission and by being both vocal and critical about the way in which 9/11 has been handled by the Bush administration. Coulter responded by grossly insulting them. I invite you to read Laurie Van Auken's July 22, 2005 statement (http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472) and explain to me where exactly she talks about enjoying her husband's death, where she speculates about maybe appearing in PLAYBOY, where she talks about her husband trying to divorce her. Then maybe you can explain HOW Coulter galloping off into speculation about their marriages and their looks qualifies as a substantive response.<br />
<br />
:::Still looking forward to your vigorous defense of the...uh..."arguments" presented by Coulter in that quote. Remember, Ed -- use "straightforward unambiguous terminology" while you're offering us all what you know about these women's personal lives and appearances, and be sure to explain to us how it's relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this web site. I'm not about to "defend" anyone, any more than you would be justified to "attack" them. We have already agreed that personal attacks are out of place here. Or at least I have '''decreed''' them to be out of place, and I have fairly consistent backing from senior staff on that. Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure. <br />
<br />
:::But as you know, Ed, the issue is not whether or personal attacks are acceptable here on Conservapedia. The issue is Ann Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls in her recent book. I included the relevant quote in a Conservapedia article on that book. You removed it on the strange grounds that somehow that quote was irrelevant, and then added an odd little paragraph about how liberals are frequently guilty of ad hominem attacks -- something that made no sense unless you were claiming that objecting to Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls somehow qualified as a liberal "ad hominem" attack on her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your strategy seems to be to attack Coulter and then challenge me to refute your attack. What you hope to accomplish by this strategy is beyond me. If it has any connection with writing the [[Ann Coulter]] article, I'll allow it, though.<br />
<br />
:::My "strategy" is to include relevant passages in Conservapedia articles. You didn't want that quote from Coulter included, probably because it reveals far too much about why so many people object to Ann Coulter. I maintain the passage is relevant and belongs in the article.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:40, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Perhaps you find Coulter's remarks insulting. <br />
<br />
:::Don't YOU find her comments about the Jersey Girls insulting? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If so, you might want to add something to the article about her writing and/or speaking style. Does she pepper her comments with personal attacks? If so, how often? And how does the frequency or percentage of this compare to other pundits, authors, or public figures? Do politicians ever do this?<br />
<br />
:::Yes, she peppers her comments with personal attacks, far more frquently than other pundits, authors, and public figures who enjoy the same level of exposure. I know of no politician who has made remarks comparable to her's about "physically intimidating liberals" or her "witty" implications that Moslems smell (quotes happily supplied on request) and I would be very interested to learn of any, if you know about them. And if you really REALLY want me to add these kind of comments to the article on GODLESS I'll be happy to do it -- and will expect those comments to remain in place once they're there. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or maybe it is [[Personal attack]]s in general you disagree with. That's a red link, which as you know means that you are free to start an article on that topic. Are personal attacks always out of place?<br />
<br />
:::Unless you are a close relative and friend, yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is it wrong to accuse people of personal faults? <br />
<br />
::: If the "personal faults" you are accusing them of involve information you have no way of knowing, like how they felt about their husbands, what the state of their marriage was, and whether they have plans to pose for nudie magazines, yes, it is wrong.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or is it only wrong when you do so to distract attention from what-they-are-saying to who-they-are? <br />
<br />
::: The kind of remarks Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Widows are wrong in any context.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What do you think of [[Double standard]]s? <br />
<br />
::: They stink. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Should one standard of conduct be applied equally to all people and all nations? <br />
<br />
::: Yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or should our political opponents be held to a substantially higher standard than our political allies? <br />
<br />
::: No. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
How much slack are we entitled to cut our friends? <br />
<br />
::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or, to put it another way, how much wrongdoing must we overlook in our friends before we finally have to say, "You have crossed the line. I just can't cover for you any more."? <br />
<br />
::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Back to the matter at hand: you have repeated in some additional detail that Coulter attacked the "Jersey Girls". I'm not sure why you added all this detail, because I read a lot about it when the flap occurred. There's no question that her comments constitute a [[personal attack]]. Same as her swipe at Edwards:<br />
*At the end of her speech ... Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, [[John Edwards]], but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610.html]<br />
<br />
::: I added "that detail" because in a discussion of the book in which it appeared, it is relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
*A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm]<br />
<br />
::: I am more interested in the extent to which the right continues to invite her to important conservative conferences, even as they attempt to deflect criticsm of her remarks with the old "She's just kidding," or "the poor dear just wants attention..." wheezes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just ''saying'' that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this? <br />
<br />
::: How does simply quoting Ann Coulter and noting that her comments aroused controversy qualify as a "personal attack?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she ''only'' responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic [[partisan]]ship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: That question is completely irrelevant, Ed. Even if Coulter included substantive counter-arguments to the JG's statements, that would not excuse her calling them "harpies," accusing them of "enjoying" their husband's deaths, and nastily implying that they should pose for PLAYBOY.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Oh, dear... ===<br />
She looks like a crackwhore of some kind. Is she ill? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Protests== <br />
<br />
Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&diff=242933Talk:Ann Coulter2007-07-20T18:09:46Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives */</p>
<hr />
<div>==General comments==<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.<br />
<br />
Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.<br />
<br />
[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.<br />
<br />
Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:<br />
<br />
::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....<br />
<br />
::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools. <br />
<br />
:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate&mdash;or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual." <br />
<br />
:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.<br />
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}<br />
<br />
It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.<br />
<br />
This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."<br />
<br />
This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ann Coulter is a political entertainer. She knows this is true and the joke is on those who take her seriously. For instance, she recently made a joke that she's made more money off her comments about wishing Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack than he has made attacking her. She's laughing all the way to the bank. That said, conservapedia has a conversative, Christian bias. To lionize Coutler is to praise someone who is actually the enemy of religous conservatism. Her behavior does not represent any of the kind and noble virtues set forth in the Torah or the Christian bible. She doesn't represent intelligent, mature discussion of issues void of schoolyard antics. Her principle is to make money off controversy. Like a neo-con Rosie O'Donnell, happy to reap the rewards of a society voracious for public spectacle. I'm a democrat and more than happy to call a spade a spade, whether they be a republican or a democrat. To be taken seriously, you must be honest and live your word.<br />
<br />
I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.<br />
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Ann's next book==<br />
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:<br />
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::The liberals are for free speech <u>unless</u> it is a conservative voicing their views <u>not</u> using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<references/><br />
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Category ==<br />
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.<br />
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.<br />
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.<br />
<br />
== Biographical data ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc. <br />
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?<br />
<br />
:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Total Fag" ==<br />
<br />
For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual. <br />
<br />
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?<br />
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.<br />
<br />
So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.<br />
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.<br />
<br />
== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==<br />
<br />
Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.<br />
<br />
::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.<br />
<br />
::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points. <br />
<br />
::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think Coulter is Funny. Liberals are allowed to have their Al Frankens -why can't we have our comedians. Of course, some of her language is inappropriate for small children. However, for adults -she is just fine.<br />
<br />
==Schoolyard taunt?==<br />
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt." <br />
<br />
Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Offensive manner==<br />
<br />
We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say. <br />
<br />
But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:<br />
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive". <br />
<br />
That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Comedic" ==<br />
<br />
The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.<br />
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==<br />
<br />
I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source. <br />
<br />
If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== interesting artlcle ==<br />
<br />
As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Strong following? ==<br />
<br />
While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:<br />
<br />
"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".<br />
<br />
Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.<br />
<br />
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]<br />
<br />
"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9] <br />
<br />
A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Jersey girls ==<br />
<br />
''moved from [[User talk:Ed Poor]]''<br />
<br />
"Ad Hominem" Attacks:<br />
<br />
"Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem or "to the person", rather than against what she is saying. It is typical of liberals to change the subject and refuse to debate issues but rather to distract people with side issues or outright irrelevancies."<br />
<br />
::Okay Ed, let's see if I've got this straight. Ann Coulter describing the Jersey Widows as "harpies," suggesting they hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY before they get too old, and announcing that they are "enjoying" their husbands deaths is NOT an ad hominem attack on these widows -- But objecting to her insulting these women in such a gross, deeply personal manner IS an ad hominem attack?<br />
<br />
::Care to explain this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[Ad hominem]] means against the person, not against what they're saying. If the Jersey widows have presented a POV on topic X, and if Coulter wore to say that their POV is wrong or should be ignored because of personal attribute Y, then she'd be making an ''ad hominem'' argument. If so, you should describe all that in the [[Ann Coulter]] article. Be sure to state whet the widows' POV is first, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(afterthought) I just found out the the phrase "ad hominem" is also used simply as a synonym for "[[personal attack]]". It does not have to be a fallacy, it can simply be bad manners. Perhaps this is the sense in which you were using the term? If so, please be clear. <br />
<br />
We need to distinguish between (1) [[ad hominem argment]] (sometimes expressed in Latin as ''argument ad hominem'') and (2) a [[personal attack]], e.g., a gratuitious swipe, an insult, etc. If you plan on staying around in this encyclopedia project, you must be prepared at a moment's notice to explain yourself more clearly. Using straightforward, unambiguous terminology is always better than using vague language, especially when it's about a hot topic. Clear terms can cool things down. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:12, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, Ed, I know that "Ad Hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying." And yes, ad hominems quite frequently take the form of a personal attack, as Ann Coulter's ad hominem against the Jersey Girls most certainly does. It therefore qualifies as both a fallacy and bad manners. What do you consider unclear about this? What do you consider puzzling or ambiguous about the inappropriateness of a passage in which Ann Coulter's refers to these women as "harpies" who are enjoying their husband's deaths, makes the disgusting suggestion that they pose for Playboy before they get too old, and suggests that their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them anyway? Do you really need me to explain to you WHY this passage of Ann Coulter's qualifies as both an ad hominem attack and an outrageous and inappropriate personal attack on them?<br />
<br />
:::The Jersey girls roused Coulter's ire by insisting on the formation of the 9/11 commission and by being both vocal and critical about the way in which 9/11 has been handled by the Bush administration. Coulter responded by grossly insulting them. I invite you to read Laurie Van Auken's July 22, 2005 statement (http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472) and explain to me where exactly she talks about enjoying her husband's death, where she speculates about maybe appearing in PLAYBOY, where she talks about her husband trying to divorce her. Then maybe you can explain HOW Coulter galloping off into speculation about their marriages and their looks qualifies as a substantive response.<br />
<br />
:::Still looking forward to your vigorous defense of the...uh..."arguments" presented by Coulter in that quote. Remember, Ed -- use "straightforward unambiguous terminology" while you're offering us all what you know about these women's personal lives and appearances, and be sure to explain to us how it's relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this web site. I'm not about to "defend" anyone, any more than you would be justified to "attack" them. We have already agreed that personal attacks are out of place here. Or at least I have '''decreed''' them to be out of place, and I have fairly consistent backing from senior staff on that. Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure. <br />
<br />
:::But as you know, Ed, the issue is not whether or personal attacks are acceptable here on Conservapedia. The issue is Ann Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls in her recent book. I included the relevant quote in a Conservapedia article on that book. You removed it on the strange grounds that somehow that quote was irrelevant, and then added an odd little paragraph about how liberals are frequently guilty of ad hominem attacks -- something that made no sense unless you were claiming that objecting to Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls somehow qualified as a liberal "ad hominem" attack on her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your strategy seems to be to attack Coulter and then challenge me to refute your attack. What you hope to accomplish by this strategy is beyond me. If it has any connection with writing the [[Ann Coulter]] article, I'll allow it, though.<br />
<br />
:::My "strategy" is to include relevant passages in Conservapedia articles. You didn't want that quote from Coulter included, probably because it reveals far too much about why so many people object to Ann Coulter. I maintain the passage is relevant and belongs in the article.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:40, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Perhaps you find Coulter's remarks insulting. <br />
<br />
:::Don't YOU find her comments about the Jersey Girls insulting? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If so, you might want to add something to the article about her writing and/or speaking style. Does she pepper her comments with personal attacks? If so, how often? And how does the frequency or percentage of this compare to other pundits, authors, or public figures? Do politicians ever do this?<br />
<br />
:::Yes, she peppers her comments with personal attacks, far more frquently than other pundits, authors, and public figures who enjoy the same level of exposure. I know of no politician who has made remarks comparable to her's about "physically intimidating liberals" or her "witty" implications that Moslems smell (quotes happily supplied on request) and I would be very interested to learn of any, if you know about them. And if you really REALLY want me to add these kind of comments to the article on GODLESS I'll be happy to do it -- and will expect those comments to remain in place once they're there. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or maybe it is [[Personal attack]]s in general you disagree with. That's a red link, which as you know means that you are free to start an article on that topic. Are personal attacks always out of place?<br />
<br />
:::Unless you are a close relative and friend, yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is it wrong to accuse people of personal faults? <br />
<br />
::: If the "personal faults" you are accusing them of involve information you have no way of knowing, like how they felt about their husbands, what the state of their marriage was, and whether they have plans to pose for nudie magazines, yes, it is wrong.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or is it only wrong when you do so to distract attention from what-they-are-saying to who-they-are? <br />
<br />
::: The kind of remarks Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Widows are wrong in any context.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What do you think of [[Double standard]]s? <br />
<br />
::: They stink. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Should one standard of conduct be applied equally to all people and all nations? <br />
<br />
::: Yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or should our political opponents be held to a substantially higher standard than our political allies? <br />
<br />
::: No. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
How much slack are we entitled to cut our friends? <br />
<br />
::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Or, to put it another way, how much wrongdoing must we overlook in our friends before we finally have to say, "You have crossed the line. I just can't cover for you any more."? <br />
<br />
::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Back to the matter at hand: you have repeated in some additional detail that Coulter attacked the "Jersey Girls". I'm not sure why you added all this detail, because I read a lot about it when the flap occurred. There's no question that her comments constitute a [[personal attack]]. Same as her swipe at Edwards:<br />
*At the end of her speech ... Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, [[John Edwards]], but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610.html]<br />
<br />
::: I added "that detail" because in a discussion of the book in which it appeared, it is relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
*A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm]<br />
<br />
::: I am more interested in the extent to which the right continues to invite her to important conservative conferences, even as they attempt to deflect criticsm of her remarks with the old "She's just kidding," or "the poor dear just wants attention..." wheezes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just ''saying'' that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this? <br />
<br />
::: How does simply quoting Ann Coulter and noting that her comments aroused controversy qualify as a "personal attack?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she ''only'' responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic [[partisan]]ship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: That question is completely irrelevant, Ed. Even if Coulter included substantive counter-arguments to the JG's statements, that would not excuse her calling them "harpies," accusing them of "enjoying" their husband's deaths, and nastily implying that they should pose for PLAYBOY.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Oh, dear... ===<br />
She looks like a crackwhore of some kind. Is she ill? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Protests== <br />
<br />
Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sharia_law&diff=242892Sharia law2007-07-20T17:52:35Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Divorce laws */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Sharia''' is the body of [[Islamic]] law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on [[Muslim]] principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical [[Qur'an]]; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of [[Allah]] by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.<br />
<br />
Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws pertaining to Sharia. It is more like a system of devising laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.<br />
<br />
Before the 19th century, legal theory was considered the domain of the traditional legal schools of thought. Most [[Sunni]] Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most [[Shia]] Muslims follow Jaafari (Hallaq 1997, Brown 1996, Aslan 2006).<br />
<br />
Laws and practices under Sharia:<br />
<br />
===Marriage laws===<br />
* The Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator can only marry a Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress or a chaste woman from the people of the book.<br />
* The Muslim woman who is not currently a fornicatress can only marry a Muslim man who is not currently a fornicator.<br />
* The Muslim fornicator can only marry a Muslim fornicatress.<br />
* The Muslim fornicatress can only marry a Muslim fornicator.<br />
* Men can marry up to four wives, but only if they are treated equally. Those who do not consider themselves capable of maintaining just behavior between wives, should refrain from this practice.<br />
* The woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian. If she marries, her husband becomes her new guardian.<br />
* The guardian may choose a suitable partner for a virgin girl, but the girl is free to contest and has the right to say 'no'.<br />
* The guardian cannot marry the divorced woman or the widow if she didn't ask to be married.<br />
* The number of husbands is limited to one.<br />
* "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right." It is obligatory for a man to give bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries.[5]<br />
<br />
===Divorce laws===<br />
* A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is mistreating her, failing to support her financially, or is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower.{{fact}}<br />
* Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her. At this point the husband must pay the wife the "delayed" component of the dower.<br />
* A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait three months before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period.{{fact}}<br />
* Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.<br />
* If a man says "I divorce thee" three times to his wife, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces.<br />
* These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.<br />
<br />
===The penalty for theft===<br />
*In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed and depending on the item of theft.<br />
===The penalty for adultery===<br />
*In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Islam]]</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=242876Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T17:44:18Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=242873Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T17:41:44Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Too Politically Correct */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?<br />
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)</div>ChristianFaithhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=242872Talk:Muhammad2007-07-20T17:40:47Z<p>ChristianFaith: /* Image */</p>
<hr />
<div>Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--[[User:John|John]] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Preferred Transliteration?==<br />
<br />
There is also a stub under [[Muhammad]]. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:'''Muhammad''' with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material [http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1993/11/growths-of-civilizations.html#political%20career%20of%20muhammad THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD] (p.466 on) [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Images depicting Muhammad==<br />
<br />
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. <br />
Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun.<br />
On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.<br />
:Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures. <br />
:And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions.<br />
I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citation ==<br />
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Image ==<br />
where is the image?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for ''every'' Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
== Too Politically Correct ==<br />
<br />
To quote Scripture:<br />
<br />
Matthew 24:11 <br />
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."<br />
<br />
(Please read the whole chapter for context)<br />
<br />
Mohammed was a false prophet.<br />
<br />
Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.<br />
<br />
"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...<br />
<br />
Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."<br />
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm<br />
<br />
Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this... <br />
<br />
Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth?</div>ChristianFaith