Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-05-16T15:48:16Z

Deuteronomy: /* General comments */

==General comments==

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.

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.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

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.

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)

:::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)

::::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)

: 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)

:::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)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::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....

::::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)

::::[[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)

::::: 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)
:::::: 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)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[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)

: 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)

:: 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.

:: 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—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."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: 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.
::::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)

::: 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)

::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)

: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)

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)

: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}}

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.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: 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)

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)

"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."

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)

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)

:::: 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)

:::::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)
:: 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)

:::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)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
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]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: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)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not 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]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::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)

:::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)

== Category ==
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)

: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.
: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.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

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.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
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?

: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)

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??

: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)

== "Total Fag" ==

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.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

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.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

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.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

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)

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)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::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.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::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)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::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)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

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)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 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)

:::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)

::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)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

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.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::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)

== "Comedic" ==

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.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: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)

::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)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

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.

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)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

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)
: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)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

: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)

:::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)

::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)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

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)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-05-16T15:44:18Z

Deuteronomy: /* General comments */

==General comments==

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.

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.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

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.

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)

:::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)

::::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)

: 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)

:::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)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::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....

::::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)

::::[[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)

::::: 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)
:::::: 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)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[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)

: 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)

:: 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.

:: 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—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."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: 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.
::::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)

::: 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)

::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)

: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)

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)

: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}}

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.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: 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)

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)

"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."

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)

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)

:::: 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)

:::::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)
:: 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)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
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]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: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)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not 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]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::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)

:::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)

== Category ==
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)

: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.
: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.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

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.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
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?

: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)

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??

: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)

== "Total Fag" ==

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.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

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.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

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.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

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)

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)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::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.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::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)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::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)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

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)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: 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)

:::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)

::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)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

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.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::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)

== "Comedic" ==

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.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: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)

::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)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

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.

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)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

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)
: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)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

: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)

:::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)

::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)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

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)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-16T15:38:42Z

Deuteronomy: /* Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary */

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Faith

2007-05-16T15:26:28Z

Deuteronomy:

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.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

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.

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''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>

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
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
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)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''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]

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)

::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."

::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)

::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.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::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)

::::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.

::::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."

::::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)

:::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)

:::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)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

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.

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)

*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)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

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.”

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:

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.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

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.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

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.

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.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

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.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

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.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

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)

==Unlocking Faith==

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)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

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.

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.

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.

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.

== Tautology! ==

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."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

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)

==Bad, bad, bad==
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.

==Alternate version==

'''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.

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.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

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)
: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)
::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)

Talk:Cold War

2007-05-16T15:20:14Z

Deuteronomy:

==End of the Cold War==
The Soviet Union didn't fall in 1989. Its prestige diminished, but it didn't dissolve until 1991.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:Corrected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:33, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::Actually the significance of the birth of Russian democracy on Christmas Day is something Western journalists tried to obscure, but we need to write about it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It was the 26th, was it not? that would make it boxing day. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It was Christmas Day that Gorby folded shop, they rung down the hammer n' sickle from the Kremilin, and Yeltsin took over. The 26th would be the first full day.

::::There are actually several meanings to the 25 of December, not the least of which is modernization, that is to say accepting the Gregorian calander, because as you know in parts of the former Soviet Union Christmas is still celebrated on the old calander. Then Soviet Premiers have taken in recent decades to making a sort of "State of the Union" or Christmas message, despite atheism being the official position. In all actuallity, Gorby was set to fold shop months earlier, and Yeltsin poised to take over, but they waited til Christmas, cause this is just traditionally the time Soviet people are accustomed to hearing from their leaders on non-crisis big events. And of course finally, most significant of all, the choice of using the Christmas as the new Russian "Fourth of July" was a pointed statement to the world about the new Russian democracy's stance on (1) separation of Church and State issues; (2) declaring a multicultural multi-ethnic state fundementally a Christian nation. These things, for obvious reasons, were totally ignored by Western media. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Content/Causes==

This article is in need of extreme lengthening and content addition. It does not take into account the full scope of the military, economic, and socio-political ramifications, not to mention its omission of [[John Paul II]]'s steadfast resolve and tireless campaigning against Godless communist oppression. The religious connotations of the "conflict" should be taken into account as well. Does anyone else agree? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Faith

2007-05-16T15:13:50Z

Deuteronomy: /* (Lack of?) Faith in Science */

Talk:Faith

2007-05-16T15:12:52Z

Deuteronomy:

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.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

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.

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''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>

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
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
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)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''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]

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)

::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."

::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)

::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.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::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)

::::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.

::::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."

::::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)

:::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)

:::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)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

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.

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)

*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)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

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.”

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:

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.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

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.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

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.

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.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

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.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

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.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

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)

==Unlocking Faith==

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)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

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.

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.

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.

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.

== Tautology! ==

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."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

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)

==Bad, bad, bad==
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.

==Alternate version==

'''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.

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.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but anyone religious 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)

User:Deuteronomy

2007-05-16T15:05:18Z

Deuteronomy: New page: I am so relieved to finally find a haven for conservative-minded scholars. I look forward to providing many quality edits and thought-provoking commentary. I have been frustrated with Wiki...

I am so relieved to finally find a haven for conservative-minded scholars. I look forward to providing many quality edits and thought-provoking commentary. I have been frustrated with Wikipedia and its overt liberal bias for years now. I am actually a little jealous I did not think of Conservapedia first!

I have been a practicing Christian since childhood. I was raised in a military household. My father, who was in the Navy, instilled in me a firm respect for God and Country. My many siblings and I are deeply involved in Christian politics. "One nation...under God" is a phrase we all should take very seriously, in my opinion.