Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Oregon Caves National Monument

2010-08-07T23:11:35Z

Dford: Removed red links

[[Image:Oregon Caves.jpg|right|350px|thumb|Cave formations inside Oregon Caves]]
'''Oregon Caves National Monument''' is located at an elevation of 4,000 feet (1,220 meters) on the wooded slopes of the Siskiyou Mountains, part of the coastal [[mountain]] range of [[Oregon]] and [[California]].

Oregon [[Cave]]s [[National Monument]] offers [[family]] focused opportunities to explore a [[marble]] cave, visit a National Historic Landmark (the Oregon Caves [[Chateau]]), hike [[trail]]s through ancient [[forest]]s, and earn a Junior Ranger Badge.

==External Links==
http://www.nps.gov/crla/ National Park Service Official website

{{Nb US national parks}}
[[Category:Oregon]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:Caves]]

Fox News Channel

2010-08-02T16:26:10Z

Dford: /* Fair and Balanced */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced" and has daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref>

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Obama ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Fox News Channel

2010-08-02T16:24:53Z

Dford: Removed some red links

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced" and has daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref>

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Obama ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Wikipedia

2010-08-02T14:25:06Z

Dford: /* The Wordbomb Saga */ removed red link

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons. In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote| "An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
The project was initiated by two [[atheism|atheists]]: [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

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

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Urban myth

2010-08-02T14:15:56Z

Dford: Created page

An '''Urban Myth''' is a tale that is passed around as true and, as with chinese whispers, alters slightly over time. Many urban myths are simply [[ghost|ghost stories]] which play on common fears while others are [[Conservative parables|parables]] meant to have a moral, much like a [[fairy tale]]. Because of the lack of detail in most urban myths, it is usually very difficult to track down where they originated. Urban myths are sometimes used by [[liberals]] to slander opposing candidates or parties.

Conservative parables

2010-08-02T13:34:18Z

Dford: /* The Graduate's Gift */ fixed typo

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories may or may not have actually occurred.

== The Fly Ball ==

One Sunday afternoon a dozen teenagers gathered for a game of coed softball against a rival team from another [[church]]. As the first team's coach assigned his players to positions in the field, he noticed a new player on his team whom he had seen only before in church services. She suffered from a severe case of [[cerebral palsy]], making it difficult for her to walk or use her arms. But she always had a smile on her face, and she brought a [[softball]] glove to play.

The coach, against his better judgment, told her to be the right-fielder. The coach knew that in softball the ball is hit to the right field less frequent than to other positions. This was supposed to be a friendly game between churches, but turned out to be far more competitive than that.

The game went smoothly for several innings. But the other team was good, and it was hitting the ball hard.

The inevitable disaster then struck in the 6th inning, with several runners on base and two outs. A batter for the other team hit a line drive directly at the right fielder.

The coach, and indeed his entire team, turned in dreadful anticipation as they watched the ball travel at a high speed right at the player with cerebral palsy.

The player held up her glove and the ball smacked directly into its pocket. She had caught the third out. Her team erupted in cheers and her ever-present smile glowed even wider. Her team went on to win the game.

'''''Her teammates were inspired more by her catch than by anything else they saw the entire year'''''.

== The Story of Two Psychiatrists -- Or How To Deal With Liberal Critics ==
''Rowland Evans, the famed columnist, was having lunch with Ronald Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection, or assassinated. Somehow, Reagan was shining through, making it look easy, and was enormously popular. Evans, a tough old newsman, was in awe. He looked Reagan in the eye and said, “You know, Mr. President, I’ve known you for more than twenty years. I first met you in 1966, and the amazing thing is that you don’t look any older now than you did back then, and the criticism never gets you down. How do you do it?”''

In response, Reagan offered a parable. "Let me explain it this way":

Let me tell you the story of the two psychiatrists — the old psychiatrist and the young psychiatrist — who had a practice together. They’d come into their office every day just bubbling with enthusiasm, always happy, upbeat, smiling, and chipper. Then they’d go into their separate suites and have patients come in and lie on the couch all day and talk about the woes in their lives. At 6:00 p.m. they’d come out and the young psychiatrist would be devastated, wiped out by the day, with a stomachache, and just miserable. The old psychiatrist would be just as chipper and smiling and upbeat as he was when he went in that morning. This went on for a number of months.

Finally one day they came out at 6:00 p.m., the young psychiatrist devastated as usual, and the old psychiatrist just as happy and smiling as he was when went in. The young psychiatrist stopped him and said, “I don’t understand it. We do the same thing every day, and I leave wiped out by hearing patients all day, and you come out after patients have been streaming in and out of your office just as upbeat as ever. How do you do it?”

'''The old psychiatrist paused a minute and said, “I never listen.” ''' <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33189 Bob Novak, a Giant of Journalism ]</ref>

== The Desperate Smoker==
[[Image:Ashtray.jpg|thumb|150px|Is charity really charity if it just goes up in [[cigarette|smoke]]?]]
A smoker was in a drug store to purchase a pack of [[cigarette]]s. Short on cash, he emptied all his pockets in order to scrounge up with every last penny he had. The cashier counted all the change and but found it was ten cents short of the total required for the cheapest pack of cigarettes.

The smoker desperately turned to the man standing behind him and asked him for a dime. The bystander clearly had a spare dime.

Should the bystander give the smoker a dime so he can purchase the pack of cigarettes?

The bystander, who is generous by nature, did something more difficult for him: he denied the request and instead urged the smoker to "kick the habit."

The smoker then gathered all his change and left the store.

This parable actually happened.

== The Fasting Woman ==
A woman had been fasting for several days and was quite weak. It was Sunday morning, and she wondered whether she had enough strength to attend church. It would have been easy to justify not going, as she had already shown her love and devotion to God that week. But she decided to attend the services anyway. Without eating any breakfast, she prepared herself for the late morning service. She got dressed, gathered her purse and belongings, and drove off to the church.

The church was filled for the late-morning service, with many hundreds of worshipers. The woman sat near the back and watched the pews fill up with members of the community, young and old. The service was about to begin. The woman then heard an unusual commotion outside, including several loud noises and shouts. She turned around several times to look at the door to the church. Her intuition told her something was wrong.

Suddenly, a large man burst through the door and began shooting at the hundreds of worshipers, children and all. The woman mustered all her strength and pulled out her gun from her bag. She then shot the intruder. Stunned, and expecting to die from her shot, the intruder killed himself. The worshipers in the church were all saved. Afterwards, the woman said that she had been "praying to God that he direct me" in what to do in life.<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html ''God Guided Me And Protected Me.''] 7 News: The Denver Channel</ref>

== The Troubled Pregnancy ==

A pregnant woman was doing missionary work in the Philippines. Due to contaminated drinking water in an impoverished area, the woman contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant. This required that she take strong medications in order to recover.

The woman's doctor told her that the medication inevitably caused irreversible damage to the developing unborn child in her womb. The doctor advised the woman to have an [[abortion]]. The doctor told the woman that she would be burdened with a disabled child and it would be better to get rid of the unborn child now through [[abortion]].

The woman refused to have the [[abortion]] and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy, whom she named Timothy.

Twenty years later, [[Tim Tebow]] was recognized as the best college football player in the [[United States]] by winning the [[Heisman Trophy]], the first to win that prestigious award as only a sophomore.<ref>This parable is based on the birth and life of Tim Tebow. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121108.html]</ref>

== The Lost $40 ==

One day a teenager received $40 from his father. The teenager then had to drive somewhere, and he put the $40 on the seat of his car. After going in and out of the car several times, and driving with the windows open, the $40 was gone. He searched and searched for it, but could not find it anywhere.

He then spent dozens of hours agonizing over the lost $40, obsessed with having lost it. It bothered him for weeks, even months. He still remembered it years later.

One day he realized that, based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes). If he had simply worked rather than worry, he would have quickly "found" the $40 and accomplished something in the process.

== The Flop ==

A skinny young man having limited athletic ability had a determination to do his very best and win. He picked the high jump event, but could only clear about 5' 3", nowhere near what was needed to win any competitions. But he worked tirelessly, trying all known techniques for jumping over a bar. Still, he could not improve to the point where he could win.

Yet he did not give up, and harnessed his competitive spirit to invent a revolutionary style of jumping back-first over the bar. Though lacking the athletic gifts of his competitors, the young man improved his jumping ability by a foot and more. He began to win.

His peculiar style attracted mockery and name-calling, as people derided his technique as the "flop". But that did not faze him, and he continued to jump in the direction opposite to all his competitors. Despite winning the national college high jump event, experts still considered his success to be a fluke and his approach to be a joke.

When it came time for the [[Olympics]], no one considered the young man to have a chance, and his more athletic competitors were favorites to win the high jump event. The whole world was riveted to the television screen as the young man flawlessly cleared every height as the bar was raised again and again. When the bar was finally raised to an Olympic record height of 7' 4 1/4", only the young man and his "flop" were able to jump over it. He had won the gold medal.

Virtually immediately everyone else, including those who had mercilessly mocked him, began praising and imitating his style. To this day it is known as the "Fosbury Flop."<ref>http://www.usatf.org/halloffame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=57</ref>

== The Difficult Science Problem ==

Physics 401 was the most difficult course in the entire college, having problem sets that would take many hours to complete each week. The students often worked on the homework together, as allowed and even encouraged by the professor. Students were also able to consult books and online resources in solving problems.

As the course progressed, the problems became increasingly difficult and complex. Some students were better than others at solving the problems. Reputations developed about which students had answers, and which ones did not.

Near the end of the course, the teacher assigned a particularly difficult problem to the class. The night before it was due, the students gathered as they had been throughout the course, and worked as hard as they could to find the answer. One student who had a reputation for not being as smart claimed he had the answer, and started to explain it to the others. But the smarter students quickly rejected his approach to the problem and told him to be quiet. Despite trying several times to describe his answer, he was ignored.

The next day the students handed in their homeworks, and the following week the professor returned their graded papers. He said that only one student had answered the difficult problem correctly. That student was the one who had tried to explain it to the others, but they would not listen.

The one student had found the correct answer in a book not used by the other students.

== The Wall ==

The leader of a nation traveled to a distant land, and planned to deliver a speech there. This leader was not known for having great intelligence, and in fact was often ridiculed within his own country. He wondered what he should say in the foreign country while he was there.

For decades, there had been a massive wall in this foreign land which denied its inhabitants the freedom to travel and visit relatives, or simply move to places having greater opportunity. Inhabitants who tried to surmount the wall were shot and killed. The region enclosed by the wall was subjected to communism; outside the wall capitalism and freedom existed.

The leader began to focus on the wall in connection with his planned speech, and proposed uttering the bold command, "tear down this wall."

But his top advisers, who were very experienced in politics and foreign policy, were adamantly against such a bold statement. They insisted on removing it from the speech. As each draft circulated these experts took the phrase out, but each time the leader inserted this phrase back in. The experts felt the phrase made the leader look foolish and hopelessly naive, and could not possibly have a positive effect. The experts were sure it would subject their leader to even more ridicule than he already endured.

But the leader did not care about the potential for ridicule, and he wanted to say what he felt was best for his audience. He ignored his experts and delivered the bold command as part of his speech.

The leader's advisers were horrified when they heard the words delivered in the actual speech. They braced for a backlash and criticism.

But two years later, to the amazement of the entire world, this wall that had stood for decades was torn down exactly as the leader courageously suggested.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070610/18speeches.htm</ref>

== Welfare ==

So, I was talking to this little girl Catherine, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, [[liberal]] [[Democrats]], were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

Catherine replied - "I would give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 to use for a new house."

Catherine thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, "why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5?"

And I said, "Welcome to the [[Republican Party]]."

==The University Assignment==

A young student studying his first [[Politics]] assignment picked to answer the question - "Have we reached the end of political ideology?" The young student, as this was his first paper, studied hard and long to argue that there has been a rise in [[conservative]] thought in recent years as a response to growing [[globalization]] and encroaching [[liberalism]]. The lecturer gave the paper low marks despite solid referencing and an extensive bibliography. The young student felt slighted by this as he had put in many hours work. Instead of bowing down and re-writing the assignment according to [[professor values|his lecturer's standards]], the student petitioned the head of department to have his paper and final mark reviewed and also got several others to back him. In the end the student got an A grade.

==The Conservative Conference==

A [[conservative]] conference was scheduled for Sept. 25, 2001, expecting most attendees to travel by air. Unfortunately, on Sept. 11, 2001 there was the [[9/11]] terrorist hijacking of airplanes and a national crisis resulting in the grounding of airplanes for a week and widespread panic.

As a result, most conferences were cancelled, and the few that were held were poorly attended. Airplanes flew nearly empty for weeks once they were allowed to fly at all.

Though he expected few others to attend, one [[conservative]] rejected the objections of his family and flew out to the conference. He saw only two other passengers on his 140-seat airplane. He checked into the hotel and felt that at least he could cheer up the conference organizers when no one else showed up.

But to his great surprise, everyone else showed up. The other attendees concluded that both [[logic]] and [[faith]] weighed in favor of traveling to the conference. There was no logical reason for staying home, and [[faith]] eliminated any anxiety. In fact, the [[conservatives]] did not even waste time discussing their decisions to attend, at a time when nearly all other travelers acted irrationally and avoided airplanes.

== The Convert ==

Born in 1910, this child suffered from a physical handicap as a youngster and could not attend regular school. He had to wear leg braces and was eventually enrolled in a school for "physical defectives." But that school was managed by the same organization that ran the school for "mental defectives" and, as he later explained, there was "some overlapping in the curriculum." As a result,
he spent his days in basket-weaving classes, and was deprived of any formal academic instruction until age 10.

But he worked hard, and eventually found his way to the [[London School of Economics]], the top school of its kind in the world.

He was an avid [[socialist]], as were most of his fellow students. But in his senior year, he happened to take an [[economics]] seminar taught by Professor [[Arnold Plant]]. That course was devoted to the "[[invisible hand]]." It did not have any readings, and focused on stimulating discussions instead.

This young man's prior educational background may not have given him as much knowledge as his classmates, but it did give him an open mind. This single course changed his life, as he embraced the logic and power of the free market.

Later he immigrated to the United States and became an economics professor. But unlike most of his colleagues, he avoided mathematical equations and formulae, bucking the modern trend in his field.

His extraordinary insight was that the free market always reaches the most efficient level of productive activity, in the absence of [[transaction costs]].

In 1991, he was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics. His name is [[Ronald Coase]]. To this day [[liberals]] fail to give him the recognition he earned.<ref>[http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/schlafly.pdf The Coase Theorem: The Greatest Economic Insight of the 20th Century]</ref>

== The Little Red Hen - Ronald Reagan Version ==
'''''"About a year ago I imposed a little poetry on you. It was called "The Incredible Bread Machine" and made a lot of sense with reference to matters economic. You didn't object too much so having gotten away with it once I'm going to try again. This is a little treatise on basic economics called 'The Modern little Red Hen.'"''''' <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wS6LcPIDRFIC&lpg=PA381&dq=%22Ronald%20Reagan%3A%20the%20power%20of%20conviction%20and%20the%20success%20of%20his%20presidency%22%20%22Little%20Red%20Hen%22&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Ronald Reagan'' By Peter J. Wallison]</ref>

----

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.
But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread....

== Socialism ==
A Parable about Socialism

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the conservative's philosophy.'

===Socialism In The Classroom===
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and
no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we
will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no
one will fail and no one will receive an A," said the professor.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied
very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they
couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise they all failed.

The professor told them that socialism, too, would ultimately fail because of the same basic human principles of incentive.

The harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism), but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

= Other Parables =

== The Drowning Man ==

A conservative and a liberal are walking along the beach when they see a man drowning a hundred feet off shore. The conservative throws him a 50 foot rope and shouts to the victim "You provide the other fifty feet." The liberal throws the man a 200 foot rope...and lets go of both ends.

== The Missing Child ==
A little girl is late home from school one day. Her mother becomes increasingly worried and after 15 minutes have passed is beside herself with anxiety. Afraid to leave the house in case the child returns, and desperate to go look for her, she is on the verge of telephoning the police when the child waltzes in through the door as though nothing is amiss. Relieved and angry the mother cries: "Where have you been?! I've been so worried!"

The child answers that she had been with the woman who lived just next door, who had very recently lost her husband. "What have you been doing bothering the poor lady next door?" the mother asks crossly.

"I haven't been bothering her, I've been comforting her," says the little girl.

"Comforting her? You're just a child, what could you do to comfort her?"

"I sat in her lap and I cried with her."

Sometimes there are ''no'' solutions, no smart come-backs, no quick fixes that can be determined through intellectual reasoning or policy making. As Dreher says: '''Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.'''<ref>Dreher, Rod. "A Crunchy Con Manifesto" [http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/about/ National Review Online]. 26 December 2007.</ref><ref>Cottrell, Stephen. ''I Thirst.'' (Zondervan; Grand Rapids, [[Michigan]]; 2003.) ISBN 0-310-25069-2</ref>

== The Atheist and the Believer ==
An atheist and a believer were having a discussion. "I don't believe in anything I can't understand!" cried the atheist. "Ah," said the believer gently. "Then your beliefs must be very small."

== Communism ==

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who ''understands'' Marx and Lenin." <ref>[http://listverse.com/2009/02/21/20-great-quotes-from-ronald-reagan/ Ronald Reagan; Communism]</ref>

== Umgawa ==
by R.W. Grant

While junketing in Africa
Our senator one day
A friendly tribe did gather 'round
To hear what he would say.

Said he, "I bring enlightment!"
"Umgawa!" they all cried
"If you'd but follow our advice!"
"Umgawa!" they replied.

"I'll tell you how our system works,
I'll tell you how it's run:
We serve the public good by force!
And this is how it's done:

"If one needs what others earn
No longer need one steal it!
Our government now does the job
And people hardly feel it!

"Umgawa!" they cried out again -
The senator continued then:
And we will show you how it's done,
And we will show the way,
So you may have Utopia
As in the U.S.A.!"

Our senator was finished now.
The chief rose with a smile:
"Thank you for your words," he said,
"Now stay with us a while!"

The senator was pleased as punch
With witnessing that day
The happy people at their work,
The children at their play,
As he was greeted all about:
"Umgawa!" was the happy shout.

And now the chieftain said, "My friend,
Come see our cattle which we tend!"
So off across the pasture now
The senator was led -
But suddenly the chief said "Wait!"
He took his arm and said:

"A word of caution ere we pass -
Don't step before you look -
Lest, my friend, you tread upon
Umgawa underfoot!"

== The Graduate's Gift ==

An arrogant young man was getting ready to graduate from college. For many months he had admired a beautiful sports car in a dealer's showroom, and knowing his wealthy father could easily afford it, he told him that was all he wanted.

As Graduation Day approached, the young man awaited signs that his father had purchased the car. Finally, on the morning of his graduation, his father called him into his private study. His father told him how proud he was to have such a fine son, and told him how much he loved him. He handed his son a beautifully wrapped gift box. Curious, and somewhat disappointed, the young man opened the box and found a lovely, leather-bound Bible, with the young man's name embossed in gold.

Angry, he shouted at his father and said "with all your money, you give me a Bible?" and stormed out of the house.

Many years passed and the young man had become very successful in business. He had a beautiful home and wonderful family, but realized his father now was getting old, and thought perhaps he should go see him. He had not seen him since that graduation day. Before he could make arrangements, he received a telegram telling him his father had passed away, and willed all of his possessions to his son. He needed to come home immediately and take care of things.

When he arrived at his father's house, sudden sadness and regret filled his heart. He began to search through his father's important papers and saw the still gift-wrapped Bible, just as he had left it years ago. With tears, he opened the Bible and began to turn the pages. His father had carefully underlined a verse, Matt.7:11, "And if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father which is in Heaven, give to those who ask Him?"

As he read those words, a car key dropped from the back of the Bible. It had a tag with the dealer's name, the same dealer who had the sports car he had wanted. On the tag was the date of his graduation, and the words PAID IN FULL.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative parables

2010-08-02T13:33:18Z

Dford: Added "Graduate's Gift" parable

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories may or may not have actually occurred.

== The Fly Ball ==

One Sunday afternoon a dozen teenagers gathered for a game of coed softball against a rival team from another [[church]]. As the first team's coach assigned his players to positions in the field, he noticed a new player on his team whom he had seen only before in church services. She suffered from a severe case of [[cerebral palsy]], making it difficult for her to walk or use her arms. But she always had a smile on her face, and she brought a [[softball]] glove to play.

The coach, against his better judgment, told her to be the right-fielder. The coach knew that in softball the ball is hit to the right field less frequent than to other positions. This was supposed to be a friendly game between churches, but turned out to be far more competitive than that.

The game went smoothly for several innings. But the other team was good, and it was hitting the ball hard.

The inevitable disaster then struck in the 6th inning, with several runners on base and two outs. A batter for the other team hit a line drive directly at the right fielder.

The coach, and indeed his entire team, turned in dreadful anticipation as they watched the ball travel at a high speed right at the player with cerebral palsy.

The player held up her glove and the ball smacked directly into its pocket. She had caught the third out. Her team erupted in cheers and her ever-present smile glowed even wider. Her team went on to win the game.

'''''Her teammates were inspired more by her catch than by anything else they saw the entire year'''''.

== The Story of Two Psychiatrists -- Or How To Deal With Liberal Critics ==
''Rowland Evans, the famed columnist, was having lunch with Ronald Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection, or assassinated. Somehow, Reagan was shining through, making it look easy, and was enormously popular. Evans, a tough old newsman, was in awe. He looked Reagan in the eye and said, “You know, Mr. President, I’ve known you for more than twenty years. I first met you in 1966, and the amazing thing is that you don’t look any older now than you did back then, and the criticism never gets you down. How do you do it?”''

In response, Reagan offered a parable. "Let me explain it this way":

Let me tell you the story of the two psychiatrists — the old psychiatrist and the young psychiatrist — who had a practice together. They’d come into their office every day just bubbling with enthusiasm, always happy, upbeat, smiling, and chipper. Then they’d go into their separate suites and have patients come in and lie on the couch all day and talk about the woes in their lives. At 6:00 p.m. they’d come out and the young psychiatrist would be devastated, wiped out by the day, with a stomachache, and just miserable. The old psychiatrist would be just as chipper and smiling and upbeat as he was when he went in that morning. This went on for a number of months.

Finally one day they came out at 6:00 p.m., the young psychiatrist devastated as usual, and the old psychiatrist just as happy and smiling as he was when went in. The young psychiatrist stopped him and said, “I don’t understand it. We do the same thing every day, and I leave wiped out by hearing patients all day, and you come out after patients have been streaming in and out of your office just as upbeat as ever. How do you do it?”

'''The old psychiatrist paused a minute and said, “I never listen.” ''' <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33189 Bob Novak, a Giant of Journalism ]</ref>

== The Desperate Smoker==
[[Image:Ashtray.jpg|thumb|150px|Is charity really charity if it just goes up in [[cigarette|smoke]]?]]
A smoker was in a drug store to purchase a pack of [[cigarette]]s. Short on cash, he emptied all his pockets in order to scrounge up with every last penny he had. The cashier counted all the change and but found it was ten cents short of the total required for the cheapest pack of cigarettes.

The smoker desperately turned to the man standing behind him and asked him for a dime. The bystander clearly had a spare dime.

Should the bystander give the smoker a dime so he can purchase the pack of cigarettes?

The bystander, who is generous by nature, did something more difficult for him: he denied the request and instead urged the smoker to "kick the habit."

The smoker then gathered all his change and left the store.

This parable actually happened.

== The Fasting Woman ==
A woman had been fasting for several days and was quite weak. It was Sunday morning, and she wondered whether she had enough strength to attend church. It would have been easy to justify not going, as she had already shown her love and devotion to God that week. But she decided to attend the services anyway. Without eating any breakfast, she prepared herself for the late morning service. She got dressed, gathered her purse and belongings, and drove off to the church.

The church was filled for the late-morning service, with many hundreds of worshipers. The woman sat near the back and watched the pews fill up with members of the community, young and old. The service was about to begin. The woman then heard an unusual commotion outside, including several loud noises and shouts. She turned around several times to look at the door to the church. Her intuition told her something was wrong.

Suddenly, a large man burst through the door and began shooting at the hundreds of worshipers, children and all. The woman mustered all her strength and pulled out her gun from her bag. She then shot the intruder. Stunned, and expecting to die from her shot, the intruder killed himself. The worshipers in the church were all saved. Afterwards, the woman said that she had been "praying to God that he direct me" in what to do in life.<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html ''God Guided Me And Protected Me.''] 7 News: The Denver Channel</ref>

== The Troubled Pregnancy ==

A pregnant woman was doing missionary work in the Philippines. Due to contaminated drinking water in an impoverished area, the woman contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant. This required that she take strong medications in order to recover.

The woman's doctor told her that the medication inevitably caused irreversible damage to the developing unborn child in her womb. The doctor advised the woman to have an [[abortion]]. The doctor told the woman that she would be burdened with a disabled child and it would be better to get rid of the unborn child now through [[abortion]].

The woman refused to have the [[abortion]] and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy, whom she named Timothy.

Twenty years later, [[Tim Tebow]] was recognized as the best college football player in the [[United States]] by winning the [[Heisman Trophy]], the first to win that prestigious award as only a sophomore.<ref>This parable is based on the birth and life of Tim Tebow. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121108.html]</ref>

== The Lost $40 ==

One day a teenager received $40 from his father. The teenager then had to drive somewhere, and he put the $40 on the seat of his car. After going in and out of the car several times, and driving with the windows open, the $40 was gone. He searched and searched for it, but could not find it anywhere.

He then spent dozens of hours agonizing over the lost $40, obsessed with having lost it. It bothered him for weeks, even months. He still remembered it years later.

One day he realized that, based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes). If he had simply worked rather than worry, he would have quickly "found" the $40 and accomplished something in the process.

== The Flop ==

A skinny young man having limited athletic ability had a determination to do his very best and win. He picked the high jump event, but could only clear about 5' 3", nowhere near what was needed to win any competitions. But he worked tirelessly, trying all known techniques for jumping over a bar. Still, he could not improve to the point where he could win.

Yet he did not give up, and harnessed his competitive spirit to invent a revolutionary style of jumping back-first over the bar. Though lacking the athletic gifts of his competitors, the young man improved his jumping ability by a foot and more. He began to win.

His peculiar style attracted mockery and name-calling, as people derided his technique as the "flop". But that did not faze him, and he continued to jump in the direction opposite to all his competitors. Despite winning the national college high jump event, experts still considered his success to be a fluke and his approach to be a joke.

When it came time for the [[Olympics]], no one considered the young man to have a chance, and his more athletic competitors were favorites to win the high jump event. The whole world was riveted to the television screen as the young man flawlessly cleared every height as the bar was raised again and again. When the bar was finally raised to an Olympic record height of 7' 4 1/4", only the young man and his "flop" were able to jump over it. He had won the gold medal.

Virtually immediately everyone else, including those who had mercilessly mocked him, began praising and imitating his style. To this day it is known as the "Fosbury Flop."<ref>http://www.usatf.org/halloffame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=57</ref>

== The Difficult Science Problem ==

Physics 401 was the most difficult course in the entire college, having problem sets that would take many hours to complete each week. The students often worked on the homework together, as allowed and even encouraged by the professor. Students were also able to consult books and online resources in solving problems.

As the course progressed, the problems became increasingly difficult and complex. Some students were better than others at solving the problems. Reputations developed about which students had answers, and which ones did not.

Near the end of the course, the teacher assigned a particularly difficult problem to the class. The night before it was due, the students gathered as they had been throughout the course, and worked as hard as they could to find the answer. One student who had a reputation for not being as smart claimed he had the answer, and started to explain it to the others. But the smarter students quickly rejected his approach to the problem and told him to be quiet. Despite trying several times to describe his answer, he was ignored.

The next day the students handed in their homeworks, and the following week the professor returned their graded papers. He said that only one student had answered the difficult problem correctly. That student was the one who had tried to explain it to the others, but they would not listen.

The one student had found the correct answer in a book not used by the other students.

== The Wall ==

The leader of a nation traveled to a distant land, and planned to deliver a speech there. This leader was not known for having great intelligence, and in fact was often ridiculed within his own country. He wondered what he should say in the foreign country while he was there.

For decades, there had been a massive wall in this foreign land which denied its inhabitants the freedom to travel and visit relatives, or simply move to places having greater opportunity. Inhabitants who tried to surmount the wall were shot and killed. The region enclosed by the wall was subjected to communism; outside the wall capitalism and freedom existed.

The leader began to focus on the wall in connection with his planned speech, and proposed uttering the bold command, "tear down this wall."

But his top advisers, who were very experienced in politics and foreign policy, were adamantly against such a bold statement. They insisted on removing it from the speech. As each draft circulated these experts took the phrase out, but each time the leader inserted this phrase back in. The experts felt the phrase made the leader look foolish and hopelessly naive, and could not possibly have a positive effect. The experts were sure it would subject their leader to even more ridicule than he already endured.

But the leader did not care about the potential for ridicule, and he wanted to say what he felt was best for his audience. He ignored his experts and delivered the bold command as part of his speech.

The leader's advisers were horrified when they heard the words delivered in the actual speech. They braced for a backlash and criticism.

But two years later, to the amazement of the entire world, this wall that had stood for decades was torn down exactly as the leader courageously suggested.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070610/18speeches.htm</ref>

== Welfare ==

So, I was talking to this little girl Catherine, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, [[liberal]] [[Democrats]], were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

Catherine replied - "I would give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 to use for a new house."

Catherine thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, "why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5?"

And I said, "Welcome to the [[Republican Party]]."

==The University Assignment==

A young student studying his first [[Politics]] assignment picked to answer the question - "Have we reached the end of political ideology?" The young student, as this was his first paper, studied hard and long to argue that there has been a rise in [[conservative]] thought in recent years as a response to growing [[globalization]] and encroaching [[liberalism]]. The lecturer gave the paper low marks despite solid referencing and an extensive bibliography. The young student felt slighted by this as he had put in many hours work. Instead of bowing down and re-writing the assignment according to [[professor values|his lecturer's standards]], the student petitioned the head of department to have his paper and final mark reviewed and also got several others to back him. In the end the student got an A grade.

==The Conservative Conference==

A [[conservative]] conference was scheduled for Sept. 25, 2001, expecting most attendees to travel by air. Unfortunately, on Sept. 11, 2001 there was the [[9/11]] terrorist hijacking of airplanes and a national crisis resulting in the grounding of airplanes for a week and widespread panic.

As a result, most conferences were cancelled, and the few that were held were poorly attended. Airplanes flew nearly empty for weeks once they were allowed to fly at all.

Though he expected few others to attend, one [[conservative]] rejected the objections of his family and flew out to the conference. He saw only two other passengers on his 140-seat airplane. He checked into the hotel and felt that at least he could cheer up the conference organizers when no one else showed up.

But to his great surprise, everyone else showed up. The other attendees concluded that both [[logic]] and [[faith]] weighed in favor of traveling to the conference. There was no logical reason for staying home, and [[faith]] eliminated any anxiety. In fact, the [[conservatives]] did not even waste time discussing their decisions to attend, at a time when nearly all other travelers acted irrationally and avoided airplanes.

== The Convert ==

Born in 1910, this child suffered from a physical handicap as a youngster and could not attend regular school. He had to wear leg braces and was eventually enrolled in a school for "physical defectives." But that school was managed by the same organization that ran the school for "mental defectives" and, as he later explained, there was "some overlapping in the curriculum." As a result,
he spent his days in basket-weaving classes, and was deprived of any formal academic instruction until age 10.

But he worked hard, and eventually found his way to the [[London School of Economics]], the top school of its kind in the world.

He was an avid [[socialist]], as were most of his fellow students. But in his senior year, he happened to take an [[economics]] seminar taught by Professor [[Arnold Plant]]. That course was devoted to the "[[invisible hand]]." It did not have any readings, and focused on stimulating discussions instead.

This young man's prior educational background may not have given him as much knowledge as his classmates, but it did give him an open mind. This single course changed his life, as he embraced the logic and power of the free market.

Later he immigrated to the United States and became an economics professor. But unlike most of his colleagues, he avoided mathematical equations and formulae, bucking the modern trend in his field.

His extraordinary insight was that the free market always reaches the most efficient level of productive activity, in the absence of [[transaction costs]].

In 1991, he was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics. His name is [[Ronald Coase]]. To this day [[liberals]] fail to give him the recognition he earned.<ref>[http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/schlafly.pdf The Coase Theorem: The Greatest Economic Insight of the 20th Century]</ref>

== The Little Red Hen - Ronald Reagan Version ==
'''''"About a year ago I imposed a little poetry on you. It was called "The Incredible Bread Machine" and made a lot of sense with reference to matters economic. You didn't object too much so having gotten away with it once I'm going to try again. This is a little treatise on basic economics called 'The Modern little Red Hen.'"''''' <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wS6LcPIDRFIC&lpg=PA381&dq=%22Ronald%20Reagan%3A%20the%20power%20of%20conviction%20and%20the%20success%20of%20his%20presidency%22%20%22Little%20Red%20Hen%22&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Ronald Reagan'' By Peter J. Wallison]</ref>

----

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.
But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread....

== Socialism ==
A Parable about Socialism

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the conservative's philosophy.'

===Socialism In The Classroom===
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and
no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we
will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no
one will fail and no one will receive an A," said the professor.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied
very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they
couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise they all failed.

The professor told them that socialism, too, would ultimately fail because of the same basic human principles of incentive.

The harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism), but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

= Other Parables =

== The Drowning Man ==

A conservative and a liberal are walking along the beach when they see a man drowning a hundred feet off shore. The conservative throws him a 50 foot rope and shouts to the victim "You provide the other fifty feet." The liberal throws the man a 200 foot rope...and lets go of both ends.

== The Missing Child ==
A little girl is late home from school one day. Her mother becomes increasingly worried and after 15 minutes have passed is beside herself with anxiety. Afraid to leave the house in case the child returns, and desperate to go look for her, she is on the verge of telephoning the police when the child waltzes in through the door as though nothing is amiss. Relieved and angry the mother cries: "Where have you been?! I've been so worried!"

The child answers that she had been with the woman who lived just next door, who had very recently lost her husband. "What have you been doing bothering the poor lady next door?" the mother asks crossly.

"I haven't been bothering her, I've been comforting her," says the little girl.

"Comforting her? You're just a child, what could you do to comfort her?"

"I sat in her lap and I cried with her."

Sometimes there are ''no'' solutions, no smart come-backs, no quick fixes that can be determined through intellectual reasoning or policy making. As Dreher says: '''Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.'''<ref>Dreher, Rod. "A Crunchy Con Manifesto" [http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/about/ National Review Online]. 26 December 2007.</ref><ref>Cottrell, Stephen. ''I Thirst.'' (Zondervan; Grand Rapids, [[Michigan]]; 2003.) ISBN 0-310-25069-2</ref>

== The Atheist and the Believer ==
An atheist and a believer were having a discussion. "I don't believe in anything I can't understand!" cried the atheist. "Ah," said the believer gently. "Then your beliefs must be very small."

== Communism ==

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who ''understands'' Marx and Lenin." <ref>[http://listverse.com/2009/02/21/20-great-quotes-from-ronald-reagan/ Ronald Reagan; Communism]</ref>

== Umgawa ==
by R.W. Grant

While junketing in Africa
Our senator one day
A friendly tribe did gather 'round
To hear what he would say.

Said he, "I bring enlightment!"
"Umgawa!" they all cried
"If you'd but follow our advice!"
"Umgawa!" they replied.

"I'll tell you how our system works,
I'll tell you how it's run:
We serve the public good by force!
And this is how it's done:

"If one needs what others earn
No longer need one steal it!
Our government now does the job
And people hardly feel it!

"Umgawa!" they cried out again -
The senator continued then:
And we will show you how it's done,
And we will show the way,
So you may have Utopia
As in the U.S.A.!"

Our senator was finished now.
The chief rose with a smile:
"Thank you for your words," he said,
"Now stay with us a while!"

The senator was pleased as punch
With witnessing that day
The happy people at their work,
The children at their play,
As he was greeted all about:
"Umgawa!" was the happy shout.

And now the chieftain said, "My friend,
Come see our cattle which we tend!"
So off across the pasture now
The senator was led -
But suddenly the chief said "Wait!"
He took his arm and said:

"A word of caution ere we pass -
Don't step before you look -
Lest, my friend, you tread upon
Umgawa underfoot!"

== The Graduate's Gift ==

An arrogant young man was getting ready to graduate from college. For many months he had admired a beautiful sports car in a dealer's showroom, and knowing his weealthy father could easily afford it, he told him that was all he wanted.

As Graduation Day approached, the young man awaited signs that his father had purchased the car. Finally, on the morning of his graduation, his father called him into his private study. His father told him how proud he was to have such a fine son, and told him how much he loved him. He handed his son a beautifully wrapped gift box. Curious, and somewhat disappointed, the young man opened the box and found a lovely, leather-bound Bible, with the young man's name embossed in gold.

Angry, he shouted at his father and said "with all your money, you give me a Bible?" and stormed out of the house.

Many years passed and the young man had become very successful in business. He had a beautiful home and wonderful family, but realized his father now was getting old, and thought perhaps he should go see him. He had not seen him since that graduation day. Before he could make arrangements, he received a telegram telling him his father had passed away, and willed all of his possessions to his son. He needed to come home immediately and take care of things.

When he arrived at his father's house, sudden sadness and regret filled his heart. He began to search through his father's important papers and saw the still gift-wrapped Bible, just as he had left it years ago. With tears, he opened the Bible and began to turn the pages. His father had carefully underlined a verse, Matt.7:11, "And if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father which is in Heaven, give to those who ask Him?"

As he read those words, a car key dropped from the back of the Bible. It had a tag with the dealer's name, the same dealer who had the sports car he had wanted. On the tag was the date of his graduation, and the words PAID IN FULL.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
{{Conservatism}}

Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children

2010-05-30T16:31:59Z

Dford: /* Yes */

{{debate-science}}

A lot of conservative media claims that modern music is negatively influencing and corrupting children and teenagers. But does it really? And to what extent? [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 06:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==No==
No, I don't think so. I know that I, as an older teenager, listen to a lot of the bands that conservatives condemn, such as Rammstein, System of a Down and a lot of other heavy metal bands. Yes I think there are problems when musicians seem to be advocating immoral behaviour in their music or lifestyles, but I think that most bands only advocate behavoiur that conservatives see as immoral, rather then us liberals, so its often a matter of opinion or perception. So mayb youths are being "corrupted" from a conserative christian POV but from a liberal POV its just life. In that case its up the parents to be responsible about what they want their children hearing. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:41, 23 June 2008

Define a 'negative influence'. Anything can be defined as a negative influence. I could argue Republicans are a bad influence; after all, they encourage views outside my own, and therefore offend me. Suggesting listening to hip-hop will make me kill gang members, or that katy perrys song mentioned below will make me 'experiment' are ridiculous.

==Yes==
:Yes... *nods nods*. I usually drive a bit faster when listening to anything 160bpms or higher--though I never exceed 70 MPH on a major highway; speed limit = 65 MPH. Also, when I don't listen to music, I tend to pay more attention.
:Just an example:
:A rising female musician--not saying the name, but it's easy to guess--promotes "experimenting" in one of her songs. The song can easily become stuck in your head. The listener can begin to question, "Hmm, I wonder what that would be like?" Life continues... "the environment forms the creature" and the listener could possibly answer her question.
:[[User:NathanG|Nate]] 20:51, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
::Well first off, I don't see how experimenting is bad. Maybe if the listener has no idea how to practice safe sex due to their government-run schools not telling them anything but "OMG DONT HAVE SECKS OMG", causing them to do something stupid....but, uh...I digress. At any rate, I think that if someone, say, kills people because a Slayer song told them to, then that person '''already''' had a bit of a mental....issue. Or issues. Honestly, I think this hooplah about music causing kids to kill is just another example of dissasociating blame. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 17:09, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:::My school taught: "We suggest you practice safe sex... don't rape anyone." They also showed us teenagers some pretty disgusting [[Sexually Transmitted Disease|STI]] videos, along with describing childbirth. "(Premarital) Sex is disgusting" became my life-belief... and it still is my belief.
:::There was a study/experiment done with 72 lab mice. [http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/Mice_and_Music_Experiment_Mo.html I suggest you read just the first article] ^.^ [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 17:16, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
"My favoite color is red, like the blood shed; from Kurt Cobain's head, when he shot himself dead; Women all grabbin at my shishkabob; Bought Lauryn Hill's tape so her kids could starve
(I can't stand white people!); You thought I was livid, now I'm even more so; S*** I got full blown AIDS and a sore throat. .... I wanna make songs all the fellas dub; And murder every rich rapper that I'm jealous of; So just remember when I bomb your set; Yo, I only cuss to make your mom upset." - Eminem, "Cum on Everybody". I believe I have made my point. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:13, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Of course. How can it not? As the above poster demonstrated, modern music, especially rap, pumps out obscenities ten dozen a minute. You'd almost be more justified letting a six year old watch SAW. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:31, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2010-05-30T16:24:44Z

Dford: /* Political debates */ removed red link

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
#[[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2010-05-30T16:24:12Z

Dford: /* Religious debates */ removed red link

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
#[[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2010-05-30T16:23:14Z

Dford: /* Christianity */

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: William, the tactics used by liberals are not used by conservatives whatsoever. They censor school prayer, we don't censor the teaching of Evolution. Also, we don't require students to write that God exists on tests like they do with Evolution or Global Warming. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey) 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::Good point, but untrue when listing the ''primary'' reasons (or favorite courses).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:If somebody thinks that the Bible supports liberal ideologies then they are incorrect. The Holy Bible is quite clearly Conservative in nature to the point where their values are almost identical. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:23, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

==Agreed==

I agree with you that most liberals are liberals due to some sort of social pressure, whether it be a liberal family, being surrounded by [[liberal bias]] in the classroom and mainstream media or believing the demonisation of conservatives because they are afraid to think otherwise. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2010-05-30T16:12:13Z

Dford:

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?

::I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::Mr. Schlafly,

::::::::::It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.

::::::::::First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.

::::::::::Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, "...it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.

::::::::::Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.

::::::::::I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.

::::::::::At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: They refer to the ''primary'' reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:: Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:: Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
:: Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
:::(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
::-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.

::: References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?

::::: In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: No one has become a liberal through ''truthful'' logical thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.
<blockquote>
"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, ''personal feelings have supplanted universal standards''. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." [http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/religious_articles.shtml Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic]

</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==TV Shows==

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? [[User:AddisonDM]] 28 December 2008

: I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: [[Libertarians]] are socially [[liberal]]. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.
As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. [[User:AddisonDM]] 6 January 2009

== Statistics ==

Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing ''all'' liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on '''issues''', not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
::The article should be rewritten following the '''title'''. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements ''other than'' conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
::But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a ''variety'' of political movements.
::Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)

::: Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.

::: Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by [[Wikipedia]] on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:::: You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that ''all'' political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and ''theists hinder atheists''. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? ''Even though'' '''some''' liberals demonize us, ''it does not make it right for us to demonize them.'' We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.

:::: To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? ''Have we removed the plank from our own eye?''

:::: Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: William, the tactics used by liberals are not used by conservatives whatsoever. They censor school prayer, we don't censor the teaching of Evolution. Also, we don't require students to write that God exists on tests like they do with Evolution or Global Warming. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

===Percentages===
It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...
:There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey) 
You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. [[User:ZacharyM|ZacharyM]] 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::Good point, but untrue when listing the ''primary'' reasons (or favorite courses).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

I would like to point out that also a lot of people become '''liberal''' on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]] 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Definitions ==

Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

==Agreed==

I agree with you that most liberals are liberals due to some sort of social pressure, whether it be a liberal family, being surrounded by [[liberal bias]] in the classroom and mainstream media or believing the demonisation of conservatives because they are afraid to think otherwise. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2010-05-30T15:14:44Z

Dford: /* Yes */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

:No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called ''textual criticism'' that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.
:Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts ''that we have'', and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

yes it is, because it has been most successful of all the religions in the world, claiming more beleivers then any other (that is what ultimatley determines how good (is that grammatically correct?) a religion is)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 02:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because ours is true and has evidence to back that up. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 11:14, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

ah. well i dont really think a religion is better than another.. a religion was first created to help one survey and percieve the world and to provide support. without it, m,any people would be lost. but i do not feel that there is an "optmila" or "true" religion...that part is just brinawash. =X [[User:KuR0K4R4|KuR0K4R4]]

why do we fight over whose god is better?? and does it really matter in the end?

No. No religion is better than any other. They are all false, and therefore totally invalid.

I don't like any of them

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I guess we all will. ALL of us. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:24, 4 December 2007 (EST)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

I just saved a ton of money by switching to Geico...
That sounds ridiculously off topic, but when confronted with such a hideously slanted question.
I understand the website's desire to set itself apart from WIKI, but asking such a narrow-minded question,
isn't going to win anyone over, in fact, if I didn't have a profound curiousity in this site, I'd already
be long gone...--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 21:03, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bandwagon==
Notice that only one religion has been picked as superior instead of asking which religion is superior and why? The subject is expected to attack such a unfair premise since it has targeted the one that seems to be a popular target for many of the commentors. This is the bandwagon propaganda technique.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

The Simpsons

2010-05-30T11:33:50Z

Dford: /* Family */

'''''The Simpsons''''' is a satirical animated comedy series created by ''Life in Hell'' cartoonist [[Matt Groening]]. ''The Simpsons'' started on the ''[[The Tracey Ullman Show]]'' in 1987. In December 1989 the show debuted on the [[Fox Network]]. The show was also made into a feature-length movie, which was released on 27 July 2007.

''The Simpsons'' is the longest-running sitcom in the [[United States]], as well as the longest-running animated television series, and is viewed all over the world. It has won 23 Emmy Awards, and will begin its 20th season in fall of 2008.

==Family==
The show revolves around the fictional Simpsons family.

===Homer Jay Simpson===
The overweight, balding father of the family. Homer "works" as a safety inspector in the local nuclear power plant - where he usually sleeps, which gets him into trouble with his boss, Mr. Burns. However, many episodes have shown him performing a wide range of other jobs. Homer enjoys a diet mostly centered around donuts and "Duff" beer. Homer is by choice quite lazy but does get pushed into occasionally performing heroic acts for his family.

Homer may also be a parody of the [[atheist]] stereotype, as on many occasions he refuses to go to church and in the movie proclaims while walking past a church, "Those idiots are too busy talking to their phoney - baloney [[God]]".

===Marge Simpson===
Marjorie "Marge" Bouvier Simpson is the mother of the family. Instantly recognizable thanks to her unfeasibly large blue beehive hairdo, Marge provides the foundation for the family. Her relationship with Homer is portrayed as a loving one but frequently exasperating due mostly to Homer's buffoonery. Marge is in many respects the prototypical suburban American mother, as she stays at home and takes care of the family while Homer works. On a few occasions Marge has gotten a job which was met with horrible results.

===Bartholomew "Bart" Simpson===
Their son Bart, the eldest child, is a troublemaker and self-proclaimed underachiever. Bart has a mixed relationship with his father. While sometimes harboring a very close relationship with his father, Bart's opinion of Homer is all over the radar, ranging from very affectionate love to deep frustration.

===Lisa Simpson===
The older daughter. Lisa is mostly concerned with being a good student, protecting the environment (although she is involved with other [[liberal]] causes at different points in the show's history such as [[vegetarianism]] or [[recycling]]), and playing the [[saxophone]]. Her high intelligence relative to the rest of her family often makes her feel isolated.

===Maggie Simpson===
A baby who hardly ever talks, instead sucking her [[pacifier]] twice. On a couple of occasions she has proven to have exceptionally high intelligence (for example, when her pacifier was took away during a trip to a [[foster home]], she staged an elaborate plot to get it back).

==Themes==
While The Simpsons has many [[liberal]] themes the basis and morals of the show often portray family centered values in a warped sort of way and many episodes have a strong [[church]] focus. The show also has many episodes which focus on politics. The writers of the show come from both liberal and conservative backgrounds, and this is reflected through the portrayal of American politics on the show. The Springfield [[Republican Party]] is headed by the villainous Mr. Burns and meets in an old castle. Twice they have put forwards candidates for elections: Burns himself ran for governor of the anonymous state Springfield is in, though he eventually lost; while in a later episode Sideshow Bob, though twice convicted for attempted murder, becomes Mayor of Springfield. He is removed from office when it is discovered that he personally and secretly committed large scale voting fraud. Meanwhile, the Springfield Democratic party is led by Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby, who is portrayed as a promiscuous, unfaithful and corrupt politician, once admitting openly that he murdered his opponents. Quimby and his family are clearly modeled on the Kennedy family.

The show's portrayal of religion and [[Christianity]] in particular is often given in the form of Ned Flanders, the Simpsons' next door neighbor. A devout Christian, Ned is sometimes overbearing in his faith, but he is consistently shown to be compassionate and decent. In the series' first few seasons Ned was generally loathed by Homer for the perceived (and often real) superiority of Ned's quality of life. Later episodes have shown the two to be quite close at times, with more than a few featuring mutual adventures. Ned's reception amongst Christians has generally been positive <ref> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/february5/1.28.html </ref>.

==Controversy==
Though The Simpsons is considerably less atheistic than other Fox shows such as Family Guy, recently, it has become more controversial. Ironically, Marge Simpson has been a highly controversial character.

Marge Simpson has appeared on the cover of Playboy.

In the 2009 Halloween Special, "Treehouse of Horror XX," the writers of the show took a jab at the Eucharist. In one story in this episode, the people of Springfield were zombified and Bart's DNA was a cure. When the Simpsons escaped Springfield, other survivors wanted to eat him, but Marge screams:

::“What kind of civilized people eat the body and blood of their savior?”

Catholic League President Bill Donahue criticized the writers for this line. <ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2009/10/catholic_league_simpsons_donoh.html</ref>

==Reference==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/ IMDB Website]
* [http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_15996/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=q38A4cHB Vatican gives its approval of the Simpsons]

[[category:Television Shows|Simpsons, The]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-05-29T19:31:19Z

Dford: /* Zoology: */

[[File:Scientific foreknowledge in the bible.jpg|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|150px|''101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge'' is a [[creationist]] booklet that was given a favorable review by [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. [[Duane Gish]].<ref>http://store.nwcreation.net/101scfafo.html</ref> ]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is the remarkable content of the [[Bible]], which shows a comprehension of scientific knowledge beyond anything which existed among secular sources at the time when the Bible was composed.

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Secular organizations and scientists, particularly evolutionists, are fond of denying the Bible's foreknowledge and pointing to alleged scientific absurdities in the Bible, but continued study of the ancient source documents routinely, and remarkably, show that these alleged absurdities and contradictions in fact result from poor translation and cultural ignorance.

== Specific examples of foreknowledge ==

==Health==
====Homosexuality and disease====
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Gospel of Mark|Gospel of Mark (Translated)]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking" was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.

==Cosmology==
===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|It is He who sits above the circle of the earth... - Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)}}
Here, the translation "circle" is inapt, as the Hebrew term entailed something spherical, not flat.

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Asteroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes asteroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the friction of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

== Zoology: ==

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

==Lions' killing methods==

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==
=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Homosexuality in Nazi Germany

2010-05-29T19:20:08Z

Dford:

[[Homosexuality]] was supported in [[Nazi Germany]], although modern gay rights activists claim that an estimated 100,000 homosexual men were arrested for this crime, of whom approximately 5,000 to 15,000 were interned in [[concentration camps]].<ref name=HTRC>[http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm Holocaust Teacher Resource Centre: Homosexuals]</ref> See [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]] for further details.

Yet, according to some historians, homosexual men constituted the core of the Nazi Party in Germany.<ref>See "Homosexuality and the Nazi Party" [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html] </ref> In contrast to the wimpy "swish" homosexual, Nazi homosexuals were ultra-macho or "butch".

The OSS addressed the reason why so many homosexuals found the [[Nazi party]] inviting,
{{Cquote|this may be due to the fact that they are all fundamentally social outcasts and consequently have a community of interests which tends to make them think and feel more or less alike. In this connection it is interesting to note that homosexuals, too, frequently regard themselves as a special form of creation or as chosen ones whose destiny it is to initiate a new order....The fact that underneath they feel themselves to be different and ostracized from normal social contacts usually makes them easy converts to a new social philosophy which does not discriminate against them. Being among civilization's discontents, they are always willing to take a chance of something new which holds any promise of improving their lot...<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-05-08.html ''A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend''], Walter C. Langer. Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C. 1941, p. 196.</ref>}}

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance writes,
{{cquote|Even today in America, it is chic in some homosexual circles for individuals to wear replicas of Nazi Germany uniforms, complete with iron crosses, storm trooper outfits, military boots and even swastikas.}}

In 1941 the [[Office of Strategic Services]] prepared ''A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler.'' Langer attributed the belief of many that [[Hitler]] was homosexual "(a) from the fact that he does show so many feminine characteristics, and (b) from the fact that there were so many homosexuals in the Party during the early days and many continue to occupy important positions." Langer added, "It does seem that Hitler feels much more at ease with homosexuals."

Some parts of the American Nazi movement are explicitly homosexual. The National Socialist League, a group that existed from the mid to late seventies, restricted its membership to homosexual Nazis.<ref>
Bryan Fischer, [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/080515 "The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party"]</ref>

Scott Lively wrote:
{{cquote|"Most people don't realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior cults which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler's initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach's homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler's partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the "gay" Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts." }}

==References==
<references />

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2010-05-29T19:06:29Z

Dford: /* Cats are superior */

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that [[cats]] are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least [[dog]] will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

The statement "Killed eight times and emerge unscathed" is not actually true. lol --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see how you can begin to make such a claim! I believe very firmly that it is completely true, without exception. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and mark this statement as 'citation needed'. ;) [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:31 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm...maybe you should test the above statement to see if it is true! Of course then you would be killing a innocent cat.(And yes I do looove cats even if they are useless) :P --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm probably more of a cat person, they're cuddlier, they don't smell and they won't irritate you with constant barking. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 15:03, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

Bah, they're both inferior to virtual pets. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:47, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Difference between cats and dogs: Dogs think, "Wowee, these people feed me, play with me, give me toys, clean up my mess and make me very happy. They must be gods!" Cats think, "Wowee, these people feed me, play with me, give me toys, clean up my mess and make me very happy. I must be a god!" --[[User:vanheldenma|vanheldenma]] 13:31, 15 August 2007

==Not that I'm biased==

I'm allergic to cats, and lived with one for the first ten or eleven years of my life before we figured it out. We just didn't know why I was sick all the time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha,ha! That is so funny! My cousin and Aunt are also allergic to cats(dogs too). --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

It took me 20 years, but I figured out I was a dog person :) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

==Cats are superior==

We could learn a thing or two from cats. Dogs are just overly dependant slaves who's entire concept of happiness depends on aproval from authority, and without that they go into a state of depression, in short, making them completely weak to higher power. Cats act as they place, using thier system to their own advantage, and having an egoist method of living that they use to their advantage. They are also more independant, maby at the cost of loyalty, but then again blind loyalty is overrated.

What is a cat?

* 1) Cats do what they want.
* 2) They rarely listen to you.
* 3) They're totally unpredictable.
* 4) They whine when they are not happy.
* 5) When you want to play, they want to be alone.
* 6) When you want to be alone, they want to play.
* 7) They expect you to cater to their every whim.
* 8) They're moody.
* 9) They leave hair everywhere.
* 10) They drive you nuts and cost an arm and a leg.

Conclusion: Cats are tiny little women in cheap fur coats. :-)

[[User:DohSan|Master Doh-San]] 18:19, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

* 11) http://icanhascheezburger.com/ (pretty much explains it all)
* 12) They are ninjas
o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 17:00, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
:ICHC isn't a very appropriate website to be posting here, some parts of the website contain inappropriate material. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 15:06, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2010-05-29T19:03:02Z

Dford: /* No */

Tabloid

2010-05-29T19:00:32Z

Dford:

'''Tabloids''' are [[newspaper]]s that practice sensationalist journalism, while reporting on trivial events that happen in the lives of celebrities. They are known to make false claims in order to get sales, which has resulted in [[libel]] lawsuits from celebrities.

==See Also==
[[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession]]

[[category:newspapers]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2010-05-29T18:54:02Z

Dford: /* No */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

----
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV

Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ- like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways. Once again, thank you Max.

-IContainMultitudes

:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members? The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP, despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal.

As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2010-05-29T18:51:52Z

Dford: /* No */

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2010-05-29T18:45:00Z

Dford:

{{debate-religion}}

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The answer is NO He cannot "do" that. Note that there is no limit however to the size of a rock that He can create, and there is no limit to the size of a rock that He can lift. Thus the question - answered in the negative - involves no limitation on God's prerogatives; if answered in the positive however does. The whole thing is a play on words as is explained more or less in various ways below. It's negation does not mean God is not omnipotent - it means that omnipotence is not properly tested as implied by this question. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:54, 28 December 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No! No matter how heavy the rock would be, God would still be able to lift it because he is the Almighty.
:::"He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved." (Psalm 62:6)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Traditional Paradox of God==
God is omnipotent Therefore he can But since he is omnipotent He can lift the rock he cannot lift Therefore God is a paradox and cannot exist

[[User:Helios|Helios]] loves the creator of this page and will worship him as though he were a paradoxical God.

The part that people miss is assuming that God is picking the rock up with a pair of arms like a human. God isn't a human. God doesn't have a physical body. God can't lift rocks. God makes the rock lift itself.
:Doesn't "lifting" assume an "up"? What is an omnipresent being standing on when lifting a rock? I think this question is broken. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:55, 16 May 2007
(EDT)

Alright, then can he make a rock so large he cannot make it move? And another thing disproving that he exists; it says in Genesis it took him six days to create the universe. A perfect, all-powerful god would have created it instantly. And some say that maybe he took his time, etc. That doesn't work either, because if he was perfect, everything he did would be as efficient as possible, and that would mean instantly. And, on top of that, he had to rest from the effort. Now, granted, creating a universe in only six days, and only resting for one is still pretty impressive, but that doesn't mean omnipotence.- Bob Sanchez

::Did it ever occur to anyone that it might take time to create imperfection from perfection? JM ([[user:Meyje|Meyje]])
:::What "imperfection from perfection"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

:As far as the rock is concerned, that has been answered below, I believe. God can do anything ''that can be done''. Creating a rock too big for Him to move is not something that can be done.
:You are incorrect in claiming that a "perfect, all-powerful god would have created [the universe] instantly". The correct statement would be that He ''could'' create it instantly, not that He ''would''.
:By claiming that He would not have taken longer because that would be less efficient is (a) not obviously true (sometimes it is more efficient to take longer), and (b) presumes that efficiency is the prime goal. Rather, it would appear from Exodus 20:11 that God chose to take six days in order to set the pattern for the week.
:Similarly, you misunderstand the reference to resting. The Bible doesn't say that God was tired and needed to recuperate. The Hebrew word translated "rest" simply means to take a break, to stop from working. Again, this would have been in order to set the pattern for the week: work six days and take the seventh day off.
:In summary, then, you have basically tried picking holes with the account by saying that if God was truly omnipotent, He would have done things the way that you think He would have done them, which overlooks that perhaps there are reasons that He ''chose'' to do them the way He did that you hadn't considered.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
God is almighty, it'll be dumb if He created a rock to the point where He Himself can not lift it. God created the Heavens and the Earth, God can lift any rock. Now if HE did created such a rock, He do have the powers to make it easier fro Him to lift it. Didn't anyone think of that? I like what Philip J. Rayment said there, it is true, He did make the patterns of the week. That's why every time God created something, the BIBLE said that it was the 1st or 2nd or 3rd day.

if god is perfect, then what reason would he have to bother with existence? Surely he would do anything he would ever need or want to do in an infinitely small time, and then simply pop out of existence. If he was all-knowing, he would know it was all he could ever want to do, and if he was capable of anything, he could stop existing.
(Rowan)
: That argument presupposes that God exists in time, which He doesn't, as "time" is part of His creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's apply this argument by logical constraint to a few other Christian doctrines, then, shall we?

Example 1:
## For a woman to beome pregnant, she must be inseminated.
## Virgins have not been inseminated
## Mary was a virgin
## Therefore, Mary was not pregnant.

Example 2:
## Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself. (Premise)
## The universe exists. (Premise)
## Therefore, the universe has a cause outside of itself.
## We call that cause God (cosmological argument).
## God exits (Premise)
## Therefore, God has a cause outside of itself.

So - God is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is [[foolhardy]]. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney

:I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Maximally powerful" doesn't mean "all-powerful". Your arguement implies that the Bible was incorrect in naming God as omnipotent, which completely destroys the foundation for faith in Christianity: The belief that the Bible is without error. - Bob Sanchez

Where does the Bible say that God is omnipotent? That word appears once in the KJV, and once in the NKJV, and nowhere else. When it appears, it describes the shouts of a crowd, and so may not be accurate. The Bible clearly gives the impression that God is more powerful than all the other beings in the universe combined, but nowhere says he is omnipotent, insofar as omnipotent is defined as "able to do anything, regardless of whether it is logically possible or not." As far as Mary is concerned, it is not logically impossible for God to create a baby inside her womb, but it would be logically impossible for God to create a baby that was not a baby. See the difference? God must conform to first-order logic, but he is not limited beyond that.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 00:42, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaagh you just disprooved god[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

God can make the rock, but every time He tries to lift it the planet he's standing on crumbles under His feet. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 00:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well then, that is basically saying that god can't create a strong enough planet to stand on. or just some infinite unbreakable plain with really strong gravity that exists solely for him to stand on so he can try to lift this unliftable rock.[[User:Revengeancer|Revengeancer]] 17:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If we assume that God does exist, I'm gonna have to go with Thomas Aquinas on this one. In his ''Summa Theologica'', he wrote:
<blockquote>Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is
numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is
called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not
come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have
the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things
cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.</blockquote>
That is, if God exists, he can do all that is logically possible, and nothing that is not. So, because there is a contradiction whether God can or cannot create the rock, it cannot be done. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 19:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:God is powerful, I like that square circle example. He can creat anything he want to created. Now why would God creat such a rock that even Himself can't lift. If the rock was heavy than God can just use His powers to make it easier to lift duhh. God is too strong to creat a rock too heavy for Him to lift. [[User:Amphibious|Amphibious]] 02:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

[added~]

haha. its kind of funny arguing about this kind of thing...because personally, i dont believe in higher beings like god. its only a figment of your mind; god holds only as much power as you give him. there is the concept of god for those who want a pillar of support around and them and i realize that there are those who truly would like to believe. and im fine with that. however, for someone like me who believes it is impractical, impossible, and downright strange to have an "omnipotent" being watching over us in such a way, i say heck sure he could. if he existed. but if we're going to put this in the context of fiction, anything is possible. but to me, if the root of this argumnet, god, does not exist, then i consider the possiblity of him creating a rock that he cant lift as invalid. {{unsigned|KuR0K4R4}}

:So what reason do you provide for God's non-existence? None! You don't believe He does—but that doesn't mean He doesn't—yet you provide absolutely no reason whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Many people have provided very good arguments supporting the view that God does exist, but you are obviously unaware of them or simply choose to ignore them, because you've made no attempt whatsoever to answer them. Instead, you simply type some throwaway lines about your personal views and expect that to count as some sort of argument (this ''is'' a ''debate'' page). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 4 December 2007 (EST)

=== "Everything that exists has a cause outside of itself." ===
Not sure who, they didn't sign their post properly, but they made this statement. There is a problem here... that is not the premise that Christians make. The statement should go like this...
:'''Everything that ''begins to'' exist has a cause.'''
* Notice that I added "begins to". For example, when a baby is born, it has a beginning, therefore it has a cause. God is the exception to the rule. Since He is the highest/most supreme Being in existence, out of necessity He always exists.
*# Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
*# God does not have a beginning.
*# Therefore God does not have a cause.
* How do we know God doesn't have a beginning or ending? Psalm 90:2 "...Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (NASB)
* A side note... "outside of itself" is not necessary in the statement. It's obvious that something cannot be the cause of itself, if it does not exist. That would be illogical. So it can be safely assumed in the statement without saying it. At least I am assuming it.
--[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Oh, I don't know. When you've got people believing that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason, perhaps some of these obvious things need to be spelt out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:37, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::I don't think Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe formed out of nothing for no reason. The theory states that we can trace the expansion of space back to a singularity, that is to say a point beyond which we cannot probe. The theory doesn't state that nothing existed prior to the singularity (indeed the singularity itself must have existed for an indeterminate time prior to its expansion into the universe we know and love). [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::: Discover magazine in 2002 described the views of Alan Guth, one of the originators of the inflation theory of the Big Bang thus: {{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507/]}} I think that supports what I said quite nicely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:08, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::Then he created a terrible strawman for the Big Bang theory, it has since been refined by Hawking among others. Whilst paradoxes remain as they always will, they seem as equally paradoxical as God; although the implications of such a being in turn create yet more paradoxes. -Barnes
:::: I assume that you are referring to Alan Guth creating a strawman. A strawman argument is an argument that claims that ''someone else'' proposes something, which you then proceed to demolish. But Guth was not claiming that ''someone else'' proposed this: he is one of the Big Bang experts, and ''he'' was proposing this. So no, it's not a strawman argument at all. Further, this dates from six years ago; I'm not sure that you are correct that Hawking has "since" refined it. And what paradoxes are implied by the existence of God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Perhaps not a strawman, but regardless of his standing this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable. General relativity shows time not to be a passive background to events but a dynamic entity which is warped my matter and energy inside it. At a point of infinite energy density time does not progress, and thus whilst we are left with the paradox of why there was a bang we do not need to answer where the energy came from.

:::The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world. It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe (if this is even possible). Then of course there is the good old problem of evil, though of course his attributes are subjective interpretations derived from 'experience'. -Barnes
::::I see lots of pins and dancing angels. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''this explanation of the Big Bang is laughable''": True, but then the whole idea of the Big Bang is laughable. Regardless of Guth's particular description, the Big Bang is basically "nothing exploded and became everything".
:::: Why don't we need to answer where the energy came from? I don't follow your explanation of that.
:::: "''The paradox of God is his realm of his existence, and his interaction in the world.''": Sorry, but that's not explaining the alleged paradox.
:::: "''It also begs the question of why he waited an infinite time before he created the universe...''": No, your argument is a loaded one, presuming something that is not claimed, and not true. Part of God's creation (the space/time/matter universe) is ''time''. That means that God ''created time''. That means that God ''does not exist IN time''. Therefore, it is not true to argue that God "waited an infinite time", because "time" didn't exist.
:::: "''... (if this is even possible).''": Why would it not be possible for an all-powerful Creator to create the universe?
:::: "''Then of course there is the good old problem of evil...''": The "good old problem of evil" is the good old bibliosceptic argument that's been long answered over and over. It's old, but it's not good.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The Big Bang does not say anything about nothing. That is a misconception not because of what carefully selected scientists have to say about the theory but because you are taking a Newtonian approach to time. 'Nothing' never existed, as i explained before because time is not merely a background to events but it is shaped by the density of matter and energy inside of it. If you have a point of infinite density then time will not progress, it will stay still. So whilst you can leave God to fill the paradox of what caused the expansion itself and therefore the progression of time, it would be wrong to think of something appearing out of nothing. Therefore, if the energy had always existed then it need not have come from anywhere.

The realm of God's existence is of course paradoxical, because the word supernatural is an oxymoron. Here is a little paste from an article about this paradox:

"Now that we have the definition of Nature and Supernatural we see a very conflicting view: One is the entirety of all the laws which govern existence as we know it, and the other is a term for those activities that can happen outside the laws of nature. That is an impossibility. If Nature is Everything, then Something cannot exist outside of Everything unless Everything is only a Something; in which case Nature therefore is incorrect in it's definition and cannot be called the laws which govern all of life, only a portion of laws that govern life. So either Nature is incorrect, or Supernatural is incorrect, they cannot be existing together logically."

Time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses. If time were stationary for God then nothing would progress for him or us; it is through chronological progression that causality can exist. If God is infinite in time, then how could he not have been waiting around for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang? And if He is finite in time, then how was he created? If He is neither finite nor infinite, then He is exempt from time and therefore causality itself.

As for the problem of evil, it is only problematic if you assume the attribute of benevolence and the degree to which you hold him responsible for our situation and therefore the situation of others. I deny free will both on empirical, metaphysical and even divine grounds, therefore we cannot be held responsible for our actions or the suffering of others. -Barnes

:Which article? I would like to read the whole thing at some point. o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 19:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=100096596&page=0&EntryID=30321825

:That nothing existed before the Big Bang is not just based on a quote from one Big Bang expert. Paul Davies, for example, said "According to modern physics, the big bang represented the origin of space and time, as well as of matter and energy."
: If your scenario is correct, and time stood still because of infinite density, and assuming God didn't trigger the Big Bang, then why isn't time still standing still? What caused the Big Bang? Any change that triggered the Big Bang would require something to be happening in time.
: The quote from the article only works because it switches meanings. From the section (in your link) just before your quote, "Nature" is defined as referring the "the material world" and "the physical world", yet the writer then bases his argument on "nature" meaning "everything". No, according to the definitions he himself supplied, it does ''not'' mean "everything". And without that, the argument collapses: there is no paradox.
: You say that time is a paradox for God because it is only through time that anything progresses, but this is something that you cannot know. What would be more accurate to say is that it is only through time that anything ''natural'' progresses, but as God is ''supernatural'', that doesn’t necessarily hold (and ''doesn't'' hold if God is the creator of time)
: If you have no free will, then even your thoughts are the unavoidable outcomes of chemical processes in your brain, which means that everything you said above you were in effect forced to say, rather than it having any basis in evidence, logic, or reason. So if you have no free will, I'm free (assuming I do have free will) to ignore everything you say. Of course, to be consistent, I have no free will either, which means that my cranial mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions, which means that my unavoidable chemical reactions are arguing for something different than your unavoidable chemical reactions, which means that those chemical reactions do not produce consistent results, which means they are not to be trusted. Which again means that I've got no reason to take any notice of you or your arguments.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Im not arguing that the Big Bang theory is not prone to paradoxes, for the progression of time is undoubtedly a paradox. Though whether such a theory requires the untestable and highly complex hypothesis of a God to cause it who is himself paradoxical, im not so sure. Transcending time is a logical impossibility, or rather a copout. If something is beyond our realm of comprehension to the extent that it isnt even a speculative concept, then it is a dissatisfying 'cause' to the universe. It is just as paradoxical as the progression of time, although infinitely more complex and therefore not preferable.

The definitions lead me to believe that nature is everything we see around us. "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature". Thus if God does interact with the world, it is only through the laws of nature that he could, and being only a something external to the empirical universe he would be not be everything but merely a something and thus limited. -[http://www.myspace.com/barnes_ Barnes]
: Most of your post was argument by incredulity and personal opinion. God is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. but one characteristic ''not'' used of him is "everything". So He is not "everything", but that doesn't mean that He is therefore limited. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

==Logical fallacy==
It is illogical to apply physical attributes to a non-physical being. Also, it is illogical to question whether something can be created to be mightier than He who is Almighty. That God cannot create something more powerful than Himself does not mean God is not all-powerful. The definition of all-powerful is that there is nothing more powerful! Furthermore, this is pitting God against Himself; His abilities against His own abilities. That makes no sense! Look at it this way: can you defeat yourself at wrestling? Of course not.

Additionally, God cannot create square circles because squares are squares and circles are circles. It's like asking God to make 1 equal 0 or to make bthe color blue the color red. Of course, I suppose God could do some M.C. Escher thing and make square circles.

Anyway, the only thing questions like these prove is how intellectually bankrupt neo-atheists are. They so want God to not exist that they will ignore their own illogic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

: A good response to this type of question has just been posted on the Creation Ministries International website[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566]. It is consistent with other comments above, including Jinxmchue's comment (complete with an M. C. Escher picture!), but is explained very clearly, in my opinion.
: There are actually several answers:
:* 'A rock too heavy for a being who can lift anything' is a self-contradictory statement, and a self-contradictory statement is a ''nothing'', so "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" really amounts to "Can God create a nothing?", which is clearly absurd.
:* Can God create a square circle? An all-powerful being can do anything that takes ''power'' to do. How much power does it take to create a square circle? It's not ''power'' that is required (again, because it's an illogical impossibility), so that's no argument against God's omnipotence either.
:* Yes, God ''can'' create a rock too heavy for God to lift! That is, God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift—because God the Son (Jesus) voluntarily gave up some of His divine powers!
: The article also relates [[C. S. Lewis]]' thoughts on the matter.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::"God (the Father) can create a rock too heavy for God (the Son) to lift" lol! I like that one. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see this argument presented by someone who thinks they're the first person to ever present it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:40, 26 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, the Bible states that God is by nature good; as He cannot do anything contrary to His nature and because creating such an object would render logic illogic, one is inclined to conclude that this argument has no bearing on His undeniable existence. {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==I'VE SOLVED IT!==
Yes, God ''can'' make a rock so big that He can't lift it. But He can also shrink it again to a size small enough that he can lift it too again. Crisis averted, argument over. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 20:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
: <grin> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:The heaviest thing in the universe may only be one cubic millimetre. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::Hooray for incredibly dense objects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your ''mom's'' an incredibly dense object. :D Seriously though, this is a linguistic paradox more than a philosophical one. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)
learn english, the key word is "heavy" not "big."

==Oh my==

God creates a rock he can't lift himself, but then the rock becomes liftable if he so wishes. He is so powerful he gets to chose his limitations. {{unsigned|Reallyforeign}}

==Yes==
of course he could, if he is able to create the known universe then he would be able to make a rock to heavy to lift even by himself[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 15:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Here's why the question is wrong==
Weight isn't a factor in whether God can lift the rock or not - it's just as easy for Him to lift a small rock as a big one (like, er, Yoda). This question is like asking 'Could He make a rock so blue He couldn't lift it?' - it's a nonsense.

==No==
*For the purpose of this argument, assume God exists and is omnipotent (subject to the restrictions of logic).
:*If God is omnipotent, surely he can lift any rock.
:*A rock which God cannot lift, therefore, cannot possibly exist. Its existence would contradict God's omnipotence.
:*Because, in this argument, God is constrained by logic, God cannot create something that cannot exist.
:*Because a rock God cannot create cannot exist, God cannot create one.
:Note that, by "subject to the restrictions of logic," I mean that God would be unable to do anything that is logically impossible.
:For example, a square circle cannot logically exist; a square has four sides, while a circle has only one, and clearly
:nothing can have four sides and one side. Therefore, a God subject to the restrictions of logic would be unable to create one.
:-[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

==Wrong assumptions give the question its curious attraction.==
Omnipotence does not mean infinite irrational, magical, meaningless, purposeless, nonsensical ability. Gravity, one of the most powerful forces in the universe, exists precisely because of the self-limiting nature of the power itself. You can say that the effect of gravity is infinite, but its powers and properties are actually determined by natural laws. Gravity obeys its own laws. God obeys his own laws. According to multi-verse theory, the answer would have to be "Yes, there must be a universe somewhere in which something as irrational as this actually happens." But in this universe, the answer must be that the Creator is not expected to contradict himself, and that this does not limit him in any meaningful way. The juxtaposition of an immovable object with an irrestible force is a hypothetical abstraction with no meaningful resolution and makes no contribution to knowledge in any context. What we should be looking for is a useful concept of omnipotence. That would be a much more interesting discussion. If you have to have a definition of omnipotence that includes infinity, then the multi-verse is for you. But in a fine-tuned, well designed universe, with clearly defined laws, properties and purpose, all of the power that exists would be that of the Creator. "Omnipotence", to me at least, means "all of the power that is" not all of the power I can imagine. It did not take infinite power to make this universe. And yet who can conceive of the difference between the abstract concept of infinite power and the forces that appear to exist? In this case Plato is wrong. You cannot determine all truth from abstractions. But science cannot save us either, because the original question is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot tell us anything about God. For those who think the existence of such a question is evidence against God, the ability of mankind to ask such a question is a miracle in itself. RCW

==No==

God cannot limit His own power. However, He could create a rock of whatever size He wanted. He could even create a rock of infinite size if He liked, but He would still be capable of lifting it. Just because God canot limit His own power does not mean He is not all powerful. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2010-05-29T18:37:04Z

Dford: /* NO */

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]{{debate-religion}}
I see this question as developmental. Morality, by my definition is having evolved or developed enough to expand your definition of self-interest to include others', as your definition of self includes self in family, self in community, etc. Then, what is moral is making decisions based on what is best for most, rather than selfishly pursuing only narrow self-interest, even when that is uncomfortable. Applied to the homosexuality debate, Why in the world would it be necessary to defend or justify something that is part of nature, something people (and other species) are born to? The answer to that is threefold: a). Some social conservatives use the bible to justify discrimination and intolerance against gay people. This is the case even though we did not all agree to be ruled by the bible, that the bible says different things about homosexuality (the Eunuchs shal inherit the earth), and that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit in a modern world (hence we don't smite people for mixing fibres in their garments, burn a sacrificial bull at the altar, condone slavery, or stone people for the 'abomination' of eating shellfish). b) Some social conservatives use twisted science to condemn gay and lesbian people, even forgetting that women are included, and looking only at so-called 'research', such as the discredited ex-gay ministry, which reinforces their belief systems. c). Those same social conservatives actually CAUSE homosexuality to be a critique of 'traditional values' (although there is NOTHING non-traditional about homosexuality in and of itself-- it's been around since before tradition!) by pushing homosexuality into the shadows by using the bible and twisted science to advocate for discrimination and intolerance against gay and lesbian people. There is nothing new about wanting to abridge the rights of people we are not comfortable with, and there's a self-reinforcing dynamic of systematic mistreatment of people who are different, leading to defensive behavior, leading to stereotypes, which are used to justify further mistreatment. There is also nothing new about blaming a group of people we are uncomfortable with for all society's ills. It's reassuring and provides a simple answer-- even if it's the wrong answer.

Alexxjm
--[[User:Alexxjm|Alexxjm]] 15:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:How do you know? God said so? Sounds arbitrary to me.[[User:Cthx]]

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no morality exists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more SharonS. In debates, everything hinges upon what definitions you use. I personally would define morals as the "natural law inscribed on a man's heart" As the Bible dictates that God inscribed this law, no morals would exist without him. However, Athieist definitions set apart different definitions, which would provide different answers. [[User:BlackholeStorm|BlackholeStorm]]

umm..no....'''IF''' he did '''NOT''' exist do what you want and the guy with the most toys wins...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:47, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God or any afterlife. However, I have morals. In fact, I feel that I am more moral than people who are moral just because god says they should be moral. What I do simply for the good of mankind you do only out of fear of burning for eternity in a lake of fire. I am also free from the prejudices against other religions, atheists, and homosexuals that comes with following a religion. There is no God, but I do not kill and steal. [[User:CBarber|CBarber]]

i very much agree with CBARBER execpt my views are slightly different. I am not atheists. I feel there is somthing out there but I have yet to know the truth. But though I do not follow one set religion i refuse to allow myself to be controled by any. I have my own morals and Ideas of human dignity and no religion is going to make me change that. If there is a "god" of some sort morals are still up to the individual person. [[USER:STILLCONTEMPLATING|STILLCONTEMPLATING]]

God does not dictate morality, as he does not exist. Religious 'morality' is not morality at all, as you are following a moral set out of cowardice and fear than because you actually feel it to be right. God is dead, meaning that the Christian morality is no longer practical or reasonable to follow as enough people have freed themselves from it, seeing as it is truly the most foolish moral code ever set forth [[by man]]. I think that even if a god exists (which he does not), it would still be up to people to decide what was right and what was wrong and to define them. Also, seeing as there is (unsurprisingly) no debate set up in which I can voice this opinion and still be relating to the subject of the debate: Christians, much like conservatives, are almost always stubborn, irrational, foolish, cowardly hypocrites.

There could be no standard of Morality withouth God. I could still sit here and say whether something is right or wrong, but that would just be my opinion based upon my personal preferences. Then everybodys morality would be subjective to whatever they prefer. Morality can only be an objective standard when God's in the picture who is infinite and unchanging. -- Ultimahero. March 3, 2008
:Couldn't have put it better myself. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:37, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

==Yes==
Morality is stored in our mind, and then we act according to this morality. People who believe in God get a morality through Christian education, the Bible, church, etc. People who don't believe make up their own morality. In my opinion (this goes to the censors out there, who already deleted this once, when it clearly DID NOT violate any Commandments or whatever) God does NOT interfere with morality in any way (unless you believe he taught morals to people long ago and they teach it to you now). Still, morality only depends on those who use it.
[[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. ""Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Everything that God supposedly tells us to do in books like Leviticus are the very same kinds of rules that the leaders of a society would come up with to best survive. "God says" not to lie with with the same sex, because you can't get children and proliferate the society unless you procreate with the opposite sex. Same goes for lying, stealing, killing, etc. Those 'morals' are made for a primitive society that has to struggle to survive and are mostly irrelevant. For example, I'm sure all here have disobeyed at least some of God's morals he set down for us. Have you ever:
::::* Eaten bacon, pork, or ham? (''And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.'')
::::* Owned or used a mule? (''Do not mate different kinds of animals.'')
::::* Grown more than one plant in a field or garden? (''Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.'')
::::* Worn polyester or any synthetic fabric? (''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'')
::::* Shaved your sideburns or trimmed your beard? (''Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'')
::::* Stolen or lied?
::::* Married or attended the marriage of a non-virgin? (''If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.'')
::::* Gotten divorced and remarried? (''He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."'')
::::* Had a brother who died with no children and not married his widow? (''"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother."'')
::::Quite obviously, these morals set for us by God are terribly outdated. This leads me to believe that anyone who answers 'no' here is a hypocrite, since they are obviously not following ALL of God's morals, or else they would be in jail for disobeying society's morals, such as not stoning women to death because they had sex before marriage. [[User:Hargrimm|Hargrimm]] 23:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in god but I still believe everyone should be a good person no matter what. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. You shoudl treat others how you want to be treated. What goes around comes around. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:But how can you know what "good" is without God? Anything else is just something made by a flawed human being. A perfect moral code can only be created by God. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you wish to take that stance, one could argue then how could man be imperfect? One of the biggest criticisms of Plato's forms was that imperfect cannot be derived from true perfection (an absolutely perfect being cannot create imperfection, it's not in their nature), thus if God is truly perfect, then humans must be perfect, yet Christians argue that is not the case. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not recognize the existence of god. I do however have morals, thanks to [[Aesop]], the legitimate father of morals. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Assume God does not exist, and that my parents, me and all the other religious folks are simply wrong. Since there is no way to prove the non-existence of God, the (by assumption, falsely) religious amongst us still have a code that they follow that they regard as "morality." Rather than being derived from God, that moral code likely was derived either from other men or possibly arose as a result of certain fundamental qualities of mankind as social beings (social "animals" I suppose). If that were the origin of morality, would the resulting rules no longer be "morality." It's a semantic game at that point, but I'd have to say that, in substance, there would still be rules of conduct that we would each choose to follow. In such a world though, I fear that the moral relativists would be right to assert that no particular morality has any primacy. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

there is no such thing as a perfect moral code. a moral code works only for the society that it was formulated for, however all moral codes across the world contain the same basic structure which must be in place for humans to live as a society. wanton killing of other members would lead to a breakdown in society as would stealing, adultery and other activities that reduce the trust of other members of the community. this is fairly solid proof that morals come from societies in general and that god has no say in the matter. these basic rules of society again come into play when animals coexist, wolf packs, tribes of chimpanzees and gorillas, schools of fish, and many other examples. if anyone wishes for a longer, more convincing argument on this subject, i recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, chapters 6 and 7. --[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

In the assumption that god does exist and that he did write our moral code (i.e the ten commandments) then how is it people defy these codes on a common occurance. This would suggest that us as people aren't relyant on god to dictate our morals then it would be natual to assume that you cold have morals without god. --[[User:concretemuncher|concretemuncher]]

Yes, there can be morality without the existence of god. The logical interpetations of laws based on universal maxims shows logical proof that specific acts (bound by duties) are immoral on the basis that, when applied to a universal status, logically self-defeat themselves. I'm basically reprising Kant here - I'm surprised that this concept came up without at least mentioning Kant once. Granted, I don't necessarily think Kant is the best moral system, and wonder whether there CAN be a perfect moral theory, however it does provide the framework that a morality can exist based on the rules of logic and reason, and thus one can (in theory anyway) conceive moral maxims based on their logical propositions. [[User:Royalcrown|Royalcrown]] 10:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)

"Why have morals?" I ask this question, not because I think morality is pointless, but because morality is not a universally recognized value and is thus not an ''inherent'' value. It is a ''subsidiary'' value, leading to something else. I have heard people state that without God, might makes right. Does the existence of God change that? As I mentioned, not everyone has the same concept of morality; from this one might assume that the lack of a universal and objective moral observer would lead to each individual choosing his/her own definition of morality. This is flawed. For the sake of argument, lets assume that God exists and is a perfect entity. This, however, does not account for the imperfection of man. God may have his word, but will every single human interpret that word in the same way? Consider this scenario: You hear a voice that you are absolutely certain is the word of God, but it tells you to commit horrible atrocities (im not saying that God is evil, this is hypothetical, cool off). Would you carry out the will of God, or would you side with your personal moral conflict? The latter debunks the argument that God defines morality, because you obviously have some conception of morality that you consider superior to the word of God. If you answered with the former...welcome to Al-Qaeda. 9/11 was the result of men who were absolutely certain that God willed them to slaughter thousands of innocent individuals. For them, God defined morality. Who are we to say that our perception of God's will is superior to anyone else's? None of this is to say that morality is invalid, ultimately subjective, or pointless. Nor is it to say that the belief in God negates the belief in morality. Personally, I like morality. I think our social structure needs moral fiber to maintain stability and the equitable distribution of happiness. But that's just it: we need morality, not because we require divine favor, but because ''happiness'' is the universal and inherent value for which morality exists to serve. Every action we do is instinctively geared towards increasing happiness (this is admittedly a complex conjecture, and, if you want more details, I suggest John Stuart Mill's ''Utilitarianism''. It's a good read:) The atrocities of 9/11 were immoral, not because they were against God's will, but because they're result was a massive net loss of happiness (pain and suffering).
If god does not exist, can anything be morally wrong? Absolutely. --[[User:Theroamingfoot|Theroamingfoot]] 23:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Immorality can be found even in non-Christian societies. Anthropology has proven that there is a taboo on acts such as incest and murder even without Western or prominent religion. [User:Tegan]

It is possible to consider morality as a characteristic of a culture. The definition being a standard of conduct that helps the culture to operate with minimal conflict. In small groups it leads to rules like "dont kill Fred, because Fred fishes and we all like fish, so leave Fred alone" or "Fred hasnt caught a fish in a month , so lets eat Fred instead ! ". Many moral codes are ultimately pro-survival of the group. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:57, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, i think that my position to an extent has been set out by others i accept morality as a function which must be assessed on a case by case basis, and which is achieved to a much greater extent by personal questioning and rational inquiry rather than by blind acceptance of rules. Much greater evil has been achieved by obedience rather than rebellion. Think about it, the Nazi regime survived for so long because people obeyed blindly and didn't think for themselves, the horrors which came about by Stalin was because of blind acceptance, same as the horrors contained in the old testament of the bible (see especially the books of exodus/Leviticus with every second person seemingly being put to death, not to mention wars etc throughout the whole of old testament (assuming them to be true - which is highly questionable)and the crusades etc etc etc. Morality exists for numerous reasons without god: the common good, personal benefit- what goes around tends to come around-, rational reality (i.e. there is no need to inflict unnecessary pain on others because you have felt pain and it is unpleasant, therefore there would be no reason for you to do that, assuming the person is not a sadist)etc etc..also see utilitarianism and kants work on ethics.. I am really more concerned with morality being assumed to exist within the context of a christian god who tortures or lets his children be tortured for an unending amount of time because they didn't want to hang out with him or didn't know he was there (was he absent) for a limited amount of time. Not to mention the fact that morality coming from god (which is what the question suggests) denies absolute morality because whatever god feels like calling "good" is therefore good, showing that morality from a christian standpoint is in fact subjective being based upon Gods whims/rationale. Maybe this is best summed up by considering an imaginary position, imagine that God comes to the conclusion that child molestation is good and must be carried out making it "moral" by christian standards, however we know that this is clearly not moral and not beneficial to anyone involved, however christians would be obliged to obey. Or how about something closer to home like killing someone for trimming their beard. This is contained within the bible and is clearly not moral. The real question i suppose is "If (the christian) god does exist (and is the measure of morality), can anything be morally wrong?"

==Questioning the Question==

If God does not exist, then all material in the bible, all theology and all material written by an army of believers is of highly dubious origin. At the very least it is 'informed speculation'; at its worst it is dangerous nonsense. That could (but does not have to) potentially mean that all 'morality' derived from a fear of hell, damnation and/or a vengeful god is invalid, and therefore irrelevant or even subversive. Many of our 'Rights and wrongs' are derived from this belief system, and our morality is the code which encapsulates the 'rights' (as opposed to the 'wrongs'). The 10 Commandments for example are an encoding of such values, which appear to rely for their validity and upon their enforcement upon a belief in an aggressive and vindictive deity.

However, there are alternatives. Humanists also derive moral codes without the need for a supporting deity. Transhumanists who believe that after a [[technological singularity]] has occured, human beings will transcend the form that we currently inhabit, are intensely concerned with ethical issues. God is nowhere in these debates; they are all about how we have a responsibility to the universe, the earth and our fellow creatures, both now and in the future. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', it is pragmatism and it is the responsible use of intellect and the application of prudence and common sense.

This means that morality based purely on a belief in God is highly fragile, for if someone chooses NOT to believe in God, their moral code fractures and they can basically behave with impunity. In medieval times where theological & scientific understanding of the world was in the hands of a few, and the horizons of the common people were limited, and the idea of God was an understandable extrapolation of the patriarchal system of family and local government, a god-based morality might have worked extremely well.However, a simple belief in a universal God in a world where we are citizens of a global community with different sets of core beliefs, different religions and therefore different moral codes, does not work at all, and, it can be argued leads to the very situation we find ourselves in today, with disillusioned sections of society who do not accept conventional moral and ethical norms of behaviour.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of the reason for a moral code is simply to be able to function as a society. With no moral code whatsoever, our future as a race would be radically limited. Even without a biblical code to adhere to, we would have most likely developed a set of rules (do not kill each other, steal, etc) otherwise there would be none of the co-operation required for us to survive as a species. As a race, we are so inter-dependant on each other (for example, even the most powerful need people to work to provide food for them) that some basic morals are required so as we can co-exist and ensure our survival. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Morals are clearly man-made. They change with the times. Six years ago, the idea that Americans would torture people would have been morally abborent to us. Now we don't blink an eye
We cheer for more, like the Romans at the coluseum

==Common Good==
So then as your own deity you can transform morality to fit your own worldview? You also seem to say there is no right or wrong to base common sense on. Then as a Humanist you can create your own morality to whatever you feel will benefit your universe. I would question where you feel responsibility toward something greater, such as the universe, while at the same time rejecting something else greater than yourself that is acknowledged by your fellow creatures.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:No man or woman is an island. There is society, and there is consensus. Whatever makes society work, and perform its functions will be an effective moral code. Different societies will do it differently. It is not an individual choice. Look at it this way. In England we drive on the left; all other European countries drive on the right. This is purely convention and is completely arbitrary, but we do it to allow traffic to flow smoothly. It is also convention that we do not murder, pillage and rape. However, there are (and have been) occasions where moral codes have allowed these. In war we are allowed to murder people. Pillaging was a common event in historic times: the Romans, Greeks, the Vikings all engaged in it. Rape was a feature of life in medieval England; at one time the Lord of the Manor had the right to sleep with any new bride. All of these people had gods, and their behaviour was condoned by their theology. The fact is that some theologies (such as that of the Aztec's) required murder. Abraham was quite willing to kill his son, because he expected his god to require a sacrifice.
Morality = the set of conventions which allow a particular society to operate, that's all. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Of course?==

Anyone can come up with a moral code. The problem is that since its source is only human then it will subject to anyone wanting to change it. Inalienable rights will no longer exist since they merely come from people who will give or take them away whenever it's politically beneficial to whomever is in charge at the time. That would not be good for morale, would it? But of course, the question begins with the word if. If you are a godless individual then morality will be something you can change whenever it will benefit your behavior. A person who acknowledges God will not be able to play free and loose with morality set in stone. So then, who would you tend to trust your children with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think I would trust my children with people who I know and have grown to trust, regardless of whence came their morals. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Anyone can come up with a moral code, and many do. However, society invents moral codes for its effective functioning and continued survival. It is not in our collective interest to have murder, mayhem and thievery rife. We need at least a consensus of behaviour from most people to have society function effectively, and in the main the moral code is devised to do just that. However, there are some biblical moral codes, such as 'an eye for an eye', which we have dispensed with because they are now deemed inappropriate. To kill a member of someone's family because one of their family has killed one of yours may have worked in biblical times, but not in today's society, where families are nuclear, and the code would end up destroying two families. Even the bible recognised this, when it was superseded by 'turn the other cheek'. Moral codes need to change according to circumstance and need. If there is an absolute code, backed up by a deity, things can never change, because there is always some sacred text which is held inalienable. A hard & fast code tied to a supreme deity also runs the risk of subversive re-interpretation of the code by deviants with vested interests (witness the re-interpretations of the Q'uran by radical scholars). We have seen how this can happen, and should not think that it is impossible to happen in the West. The existence of the US is testament to the fact that there were radically different interpretations of biblical moral codes in the 16th & 17th Centuries. In reality whatever moral code exists, and whatever its basis it will always be coloured with political expediency.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you say that you would do away with having inalienable rights? Just because people have their own liberal interpretations of moral codes negates their usefullness? --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You keep on bringing up inalienable rights? What do inalienable rights have to do with God? One can believe in the inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self determination without acknowledging God. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: "Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term in English common law. Property rights were alienable (could be sold) or inalienable (could only be inherited). Inalienable here simply means something which is taken to be fundamental, and therefore unquestionable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundlesss. claiming that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. In the piece above I was pointing out that some people hold their sacred texts to be unalienable, that is they cannot be questioned. This is a ''very bad thing'', especially where sacred texts are in conflict with one another, as it denies discussion and negotiation. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It can be argued that those who accept Christianity are far more dangerous in straying from their morals than others, since any sin (aside from blasphemy) is forgivable. This, in effect, grants Christians a free pass to do whatever as long as they ask for forgiveness. I know the common responses, that repentance means making an effort not to commit such sins again, that Christians should want to live like Jesus and try not to sin, etc., but the fact remains that Christianity gives its followers the right to do almost anything they please. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: But not only Christians - any religion can be guilty of this. Look at the way that radical Islam has subverted the Q'uran to its own ends. It is the presupposition that there is a text 'revealed by God' which is the problem. By the very nature of language and human development, words change meaning over time, we constantly interpret and re-interpret. What words mean to one generation, may mean something completely different to another. The word 'gay' used to mean, light, jolly and carefree. 'Groggy' was a description of a course-grained material (grossgrain), not a state of semiconsciousness. If you suppose that a deity has revealed to you a text for all time, then because words change in meaning, it is clear that each generation will, by necessity, be forced into creating their own meanings from that text. This is where the danger lies. Let us assume that the 'revealed' word ''is'' the word of God. It is absolutly clear that not all re-interpreters of the code do, or even in principle ever could, agree; many are in conflict with each other, and some appear to be in direct contravention of the fundamental tenets of their faith. How can an ordinary person possibly be expected to decide what is right and what is wrong in this maelstrom? The fact is that we don't; moral codes are informed by, but not dictated by, religious beliefs. Moral codes are basically human social constructions, and are shared understandings of what is required to live peaceably, and ensure the continued survivial of our genes and memes into the next generation. A believer might claim that their 'god' has inspired them to do this, and I can't argue with that, as it is their belief. However, that does not explain why atheists, pagans and other non-monotheists would choose to live their lives according to the same shared moral codes as them. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Christianity does not give its followers the right to do almost anything they please. Nor do Christians have a free pass to do whatever. Anyone that hides behind a label they think will protect them from harm are mistaken. Chances are that they have abandoned all morality their religion requires of them. It seems that everyone here lives in some sort of Christianized society here. So that when the God word is invoked only the Christians are thought of. The Inalienable rights of morality that are common to all such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't need to come from God. You can let those things be given or taken at the pleasure of your local autocratic official by invoking the common good. Since there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong. When people are unable to discriminate between good or evil they will not recognise any moral wrong. A Humanist doesn't recognize any higher authority and may change the morality at their pleasure, whatever that may be. From the 1st Humanist Manifesto to the Amsterdam Declaration. The Christian can't do this since their original texts don't change. If you're a Humanist, what moral rights do you have that are guaranteed permanent? Or considered to be inalienable that won't be changed with a subsequent manifesto?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the love of all that is good and decent, now you're saying a humanist can't recognize good and evil? These are not concepts that require a God! You are slandering large portions of the world population.

:::*Humanists can change their morals at a whim
:::*Humanists can't recognize good and evil

:::It's a shame your concept of God-given morals doesn't include one about civil behavior. Mine does, and my morals don't come from God. Funny how that works out. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, but it's all right when Christianity is being slandered here. I don't object to different viewpoints, even incorrect ones, without accusations of slander. I'm being as civil as anyone else on this. If you are a Humanist, you still haven't answered my question. It's an honest question? But if you won't then yes it would funny indeed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, no, it's not all right for Christianity to be slandered. You have made too points which are deeply offensive to people and aren't true. That's slander and it is uncivil. As for your question, please define "moral rights" and I'll give it a swing. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Human rights are basically moral rights. But how do you claim to derive these rights from? I claim inalienable moral rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being endowed upon me by my Creator. Freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to defend oneself would be moral and human individual rights. Are yours from God or an institution? If from God then they can't be taken away by others. If from an institution such as a government then they can be taken away in an instant. What is the guarantor of your rights that are human and moral? If God doesn't exist then moral rights and wrongs can be considered relative to the whim of those in authority over others. So that an individuals morality of right and wrong will be rendered meaningless. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I derive those rights based on a couple things. The fact that, in general, my fellow man knows that the benefit of the community is to his benefit as well. And, failing that, that my fellow man knows that if he denies those rights to someone, that those rights will be denied him.

::::More importantly, morals are not rights. They are responsibilities. They are the responsibility of everyone that lives in a community.

::::And while the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges a creator, enumerates those rights in a general way, it also dictatates that: to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And that it is the Constitution of the United States, which does not mention a creator, which delineates and enforces those rights. Both documents, of course, are products of the Enlightenment. You should learn about the Enlightenment. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If you consider this hypothetical you will be committing the unforgivable sin. You will not be able to take back this mistake so for the sake of you immortal soal do not go any further.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Ever heard of "treat others as you want them to treat you"? In other words don't do things that you know will hurt people.
Sounds like a damn good moral code to me, and it's universal as well.

Jesus even said something like that, but you don't have to be religious to live by this rule.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I totally agree. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I'm not a Christian and I don't believe God exists, but that doesn't mean that I can find nothing of value in the Bible). This idea is part of all major religions, and is equally at home in secular thought. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:51, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Does morality exist, in the Christian, Biblical sense, that certain things are good because God tells us they are good, or does God tell us to do things because they are good? If God did not exist, would we still believe that it is wrong to take something that is not yours, or to kidnap and torture someone? I believe that the answer is a resounding "yes." I have never read the Bible. Before this year, I had never attended church. Yet somehow, I have managed to be a fairly good person, with stronger ethics and a better head on my shoulders than most of the people I have met at church. How can this be? The answer is simple. I derived my moral code from my good sense of how the world -- being what it is -- works, and what is beneficial or harmful to humans -- being what they are. The Bible and other religious works can be used as guidelines for living a good life, but I don't believe that any of them are inerrant. Humans, in general, have a degree of consciousness and intellect that allows them to make judgments on a moral statement, i.e., whether it is true and useful. Now, it's all well and good to say that we have the ability to make those kinds of judgments, but to whom, if anyone, do we owe responsibility? Well, as self-aware beings who feel emotions such as fear, happiness, sadness, and pity, and who live in communities and socities, we have an obligation both to ourselves and others. We are obligated to take care of ourselves and to live a good life, and we are obligated -- to the best of our ability -- to others to ensure that they have what is necessary to live a good life. Sorry if that was rambling an incoherent... I usually shy away from debates, so I'm not accustomed to proper debating style. :) Anyway... discuss. [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 13:53, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
i think that if the bible was the one true moral authority (and God being omnipotent) then empathy would not exist, because it would be unnecessary and humans would just do as the bible instructed without having conflict. Since that is obviously not the case Christianity cannot have its cake and eat it too. Ultimately i believe that this all goes back to the concept that Good isn't Good without Bad. If bad things did not occur then good would just be the way things are. I think that the argument that its a test from God has become recognized as ludicrous. [[User:superstudent|superstudent]]12:31, 9 October 2008

I'm a materialistic atheist and thought it might be interesting to point out how science can address all the issues on this page. Yes, I believe morals are real and exist even if you claim God as a typical conservative might define him is not real. They are created by natural materialistic mechanical properties of the universe we live in. They exist, and are created on at least 3 different levels which are each important in their own way to us. They all tie back to the all important question at the heart of this issue which is what is right, and where does it come from? The simple conservative answer it that it comes from God. I think that answer is actually correct even though I'm a atheist because I translate the classic definition of God into one which is consistent with my scientific knowledge. Which brings me to the top level source of all morality. That's Evolution and survival. To me, the universe is my God (not the first cause of the universe, but simply the entire universe as it exists and has it has always existed). And that God created me by the process of evolution. And that God instilled in me, a desire to survive - a purpose of surviving. I care, because I was built by a process (my God's work) that designed me to care about my survival. I am around, because I am part of something that has manged to survive - which includes both the human race (all people), and the entire ecosystem of the earth that supports us, and the rest of life here. We do what we are built to do, and we are built to survive as part of this ecosystem we exist in. All forms of morality, and all questions of what is right, ultimately have grown out of this top level process that exists in the universe and which created us. But, as is well documented in other parts of Conservapedia - creating a morality based on survival can lead to great evil. So how can I justify that survival is the source of all morality? The great evil emerges when the idea of survival is used to justify great selfishness. That's where the mistake is made. Humans can not survive by being selfish. Hitler is the poster boy for failure to understand that his best odds of survival, was not created by his great selfishness (kill all jews just because he didn't like Jews). He died, alone, in his bunker, with most the world hating him, for having made such a huge error. The true powers of evolution killed him for his mistake. I would say God killed him for his mistake. But that is only the top level of morality. Moving on, I have to introduce the next level. That level is created by the way the human brain works. Humans are reinforcement learning machines. These types of machines have an internal generated reward signal that creates the machines personal motivations. This hardware, which was built into us by the process of evolution, is what creates our personal needs, motivations, and drives. It is what forces us to run from the things that cause us pain, and seek out the things that cause us pleasure. It's what love is - the desire we all have to seek that which causes us pleasure and that which helps us avoid pain. The very long and slow process of evolution, adjusts in humans, what our base motivations are - what we naturally love and hate. What base motivations we have, in general, exist in us, because they have worked over the eons to keep the human species alive. Not just to keep the individual alive, but to keep the human race as a whole alive, and to keep our selfish genes alive. So though with our ability to reason, and do science, we have uncovered that our desires grow from the top level need of survival, what really motivates each of us individually, is not survival directly, but instead, the built-in drives that happen to have been created in us by our genetic heritage. Most humans have very similar drives and motivations. We hate to not have food, to not be able to sleep, to be too cold, to be too hot, to have our body damaged, we like sex, and many smells, and the taste of many foods - all because these desires are built into us at birth. But we are not all the same. Some people have a few innate likes, and dislikes, that are different - and even hard to understand - like homosexuality. Is homosexuality bad for survival? Clearly, if all humans had such a drive, the human race would die off in a few generations, and that would be counter to the need to survive. But we don't fully understand why some people are born with this drive. A answer that could be quite simple, is that it's genetically difficult to build into the sexual drives needed for survival, while never getting the "programming" wrong and misdirecting that drive to the same sex, instead of to the opposite sex. In other words, as long as the drive is towards the opposite in the majority of people, the fact that our genetic system of reproduction produces a same-sex drive at times is mostly harmless. The needs to have a sexual drive, and the need to have variation in reproduction, might be far more important to the survival of our species, than the need to not have some percentage of the population turn out to be homosexual. But what we can speculate, is that since it's here in such numbers, it exists for some reason, which is beneficial for our survival as a species. But all this is simply pointing out that though our high level purpose is survival, each of our brains are built with a far simpler purpose - which is to serve the innate desires and drives which are genetically built into us. When those innate drives make us do things that work well at surviving, our innate drives tend to be passed on to future generations. When our innate drives fail to keep us alive - which is what happens when someone eats themselves to death at an early age - the simple process of evolution works to prune those drives from our population. As individuals, we are slaves to our innate drives, far more so than we are slaves to the our God and the process of survival that created us. So what is "Right" for an individual, is really defined by what innate drives they have genetically built into them. We say, people must follow their heart. This really means that people must follow their own innate drives - if not, they will never be happy. But if your individual drives are at odds with the views of the society you live in, life will always be difficult for you. Finding personal happiness will be hard. Which brings us to the third level of morality - and the one that's really the most important here in Conservapedia. The human brain is not just limited to dealing, and serving it's innate drives. The human brain is a learning machine that has very strong adaptive powers. It adapts to the environment it is placed in. That's the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate. A very important part of that adaptation, is the way we learn secondary reinforcers. We _learn_ what we need to love, and hate, in order to best serve our prime innate motivations. This learning is not a choice we have - it's not part of our free will as we might say. It happens automatically whether we like it or not. It's a subconscious effect that exists in us. We learn to love our family because of what they have done for us - such as feeding and protecting us for years as we grew up. Our subconscious learns what we must do to protect the things we love. If we grow up in a family that rejects anyone that doesn't go to church, we too learn to love going to church - because the act protects our standing in our family - which is so important to our prime needs. Though we might have such thoughts at the conscious level where we debate such things with ourselves using the logic and language - the real work happens subconsciously shaping our secondary motivations without our awareness of it happening. It just does. We absorb the beliefs of the people that have been (and which we believe will continue to be) important to us. These beliefs become almost as important to us, as our innate prime motivations. And they form the third and most important level of morals. They are in fact, the best description of our morals - they are our prime beliefs that guide our decisions and actions in life. These beliefs are not the beliefs that are genetically created in us by evolution, but instead, the beliefs we learn from our society. A typical religion is filled with these sorts of learned beliefs about what is right and wrong and Conservapedia is filled with these beliefs - beliefs that are so important to a large set of people, that it motivated them to create Conservapedia. The ultimate answer to what is a "good" belief, and what is a "bad" belief all ties back to what helps us as a person, as a race, and as an ecosystem, survive. The answers are seldom easy. But one simple way to find "good" answers, is the way evolution finds them - by the test of time. The longer a belief can survive, the better it must be for helping survival. Our beliefs are subject to the same forces of evolution that our genes are. Good beliefs help people survive - who then share them with their friends and family - who survive to pass them on. We can roughly measure the power and value of a moral belief, by its age. Religions beliefs tend to be very old. And that age is the proof of their value. They are beliefs that have helped many people survive - they are here today - because of their survival value. There are many beliefs from the Bible however that haven't survived into our modern times. Times change, and beliefs that once worked to help survival in the past, can stop working as society changes. But religion in general is still going strong, and though some of that can be explained as momentum (good ideas from the past can take a long time to die out after their value fades) most of what survives has to be seen as "good" simply because it has survived - it's passed the ultimate test of time (so far). Why a given belief is good, is often too complex for us to really fully understand (I could say God's ways our beyond our understanding and be consistent with my definition of God). So to sum all this up. Yes, morals are real whether or not you choose to believe in a first-cause God. They are created by the process of evolution acting on three different levels. The top level being the pure survival of the fittest. The second level, is the innate drives built into us by our genetics - which themselves evolve by the forces of evolution. And the third level, our learned behaviors - our beliefs - our memes - passed from human to human (our memes) which also live, and die, based on their powers of survival, and more important, their ability to help _us_ survive as individuals, as societies, as a race, and as an living ecosystem here on earth. What we each chose for our own morals are not so important in the grand scale of things. But if we choose the wrong ones, we will each have to answer to our own God. [[User:CurtW|CurtW]] 7 December 2009

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2010-05-29T18:33:35Z

Dford:

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::What Wikipedia should've been? As is stated above, Cp merely makes a bias in the opposite direction from Wp. Also, I've never seen a truly strong bias on Wikipedia, while on here, I've seen: Atheism and Deception, Atheism and Mental Health, Atheism and Charity, Atheism and Mass Murder, Atheism and Suicide, etc. In other words, Conservapedia goes out of their way to bash Atheism, while Christianity is all "fine and dandy". In other words, unless Cp has a complete change of heart, it can never become the next Wikipedia. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]] 21:31, 11 July 2009 (EDT)KnightOfTheNight

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Freethough13: ( i hope the name doesn't get me kicked off). if i may,
it would be a tragic loss. i'm not argueing that wikipedia is liberal (which there is a reason. liberals are consiterably more likly to use the internet. ergo, they/i must at at least one time have a shift one way or another. the supposide liberalness of wikipedia is simply an effect, not an intentional fault itself. i back this off of me testing the theory of a liberal wikipedia. when i put in "Bush Sucks" on the Republican party, hell, even backed it up with sources, it blocked me.), but simply because of the outright, obveouse, pround, and incresingly strong right-wing bias. at least wikipedia has a less stringent intention of holding one political line or another.

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think this site should be as big as Wikipedia, since it's simply a free online resource. No gimmicks. I'm a British atheist, and I'm not here to critize the idea behind this site. It's what makes the internet so wonderful: different opinions. However, this site is dangerously on the verge of becoming another parody of convervatist christians. You, the users, are blantantly making this site hostile to anyone with a different ideal, how will it ever grow or be taken seriously? Not everyone will agree, I don't, I personally think it's extremely homophobic, racist, elitist, sexist, shows bias and mispresents facts, but that's one opinion. In order to grow as an idea, embrace other ideals, no-ones asking you to stop being tories. But just lashing back with anti-foreign, hypocritcal retotrts is what makes me and everyone else dislike your ideas. Don't be like that. Embrace, isn't that what Jesus would do? Don't dare force ideals on anyone. Chris Roberts/chrisroberts

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

CE has academic credibility; it's just not a necessary change, especially for American authors. Our audience is not academics, so we don't have to use their [[date formats]]. In years to come, we can make the change if our relationship to academia warrants it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*(haven't read all the above posts...pardon the certain faux-pas's that I now make) Unless something seriously changes with the way the leadership of wikipedia forms it's relationships, I don't see how that place is going to keep going. [[Jimbo Wales]] figuratively and literally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark jumped the shark] when he allowed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2 User:FT2] to be a member of its "arbcom," or arbitration committee. When legitimate concerns were raised about FT2 personal interests--however untactful and poorly chosen the phrase "dog lover" may be--these were ignored and the editor was blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=255290603]. It's only now come to light because of a possible procedural/process violation, which is apparently no laughing matter over there. Maybe I'm still too much of a country mouse--no pun intended--but I can't see how anyone could support leadership who given full knowledge and evidence of moral bankruptcy, nevertheless, sees no reason to be far more careful with his relations or those of his organization. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

It's interesting to see the comments above. One of the biggest things that I would change is to adapt a more neutral stance on the topics. This is a big thing.
* As to the suffix AD or CE, I was taught to use AD. So for me it's easier to use. I prefer AD to CE because, as someone said it above, it worked for 2000 years.
* As to whether or not this site can become as big or bigger than Wikipedia; I am a college student and my instructors told my class that using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed. I find this interesting. I've run across numerous articles that don't list a source or another place to find the information.
* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited. Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem. And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.
* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject. You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better. While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.
*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics. I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic. Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy). I go there because this information is in one place. It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site. For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies. While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research. Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics. How will I know if it's not listed?
* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people. I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner. This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed. This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics. If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page. Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias? Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe. He does an excellent job.

Summary... If you can present both sides of the topic in an intelligent manner with several citations, people will be more apt to use this site. Otherwise it will become a haven for extremists and fall off the map of every day people with conservative views.--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==View from a longtime Wikipedian==
Wikipedia succeeded because of three things, one of which Conservapedia possesses, the other two of which it ''could'' easily possess.

* A dedicated body of core editors
* Open editing
* Open content

Conservapedia already has a quite sizeable body of people who edit daily on a diverse range of subjects. This means that there is something to read on Conservapedia and the content grows as time goes on, and there is a sense of community about Conservapedia. Having some of the most experienced Wikipedians, like Ed Poor, around the place can only help in this regard.

But one thing that is missing is open editing. It is this aspect of Wiki editing that Wikipedia successfully imported (with significant modifications) from traditional "Meatball-style" wikis, which means Wikipedia's rate of growth took off and its use became viral.

At the moment on Conservapedia editing is closed, in the sense that if you discover an error or omission in an article, then you have to make an effort to register an account just to make a little tweak, add some new content, or even make a comment on the talk page about something that needs attention. It is impossible to overstate how costly that is for an encyclopedia.

Okay, Conservapedia doesn't want to repeat the complete openness of Wikipedia, perhaps because of a perception that it would tend to fill up with trivia the way so many Wikipedia articles do, perhaps because of a feeling that this would invite vandals to trash the content, and perhaps because of a feeling that letting everybody edit every article would tend to dilute the political focus or even end up with what the Conservapedia community perceives to be a liberal bias in Wikipedia.

But putting people through that routine just to make an edit is costly. In May, 2008, just over 1100 people took the trouble to create an account. About the same number created new accounts in October. That's not bad, but remember that accounts for every single edit by a new editor in each of those months. Worse, a good proportion of new editors never even get as far as editing. For whatever reason (perhaps they only wanted to be able to set preferences) they never got to the point of editing an article, so the number of first edits by new editors is probably less than 1000 per month, or about 30 per day. Spread across the articles that is a really tiny number of edits.

Most of those who do edit only make one or two edits but that doesn't matter. The point is that they saw something that needed fixing and they fixed it. With open editing you'd get many more edits, and that would bring new content.

There is a myth, sometimes encouraged by Jimbo Wales, that most of Wikipedia is built by just a few editors. That's wrong. Most ''featured articles'' are written substantially by a tiny subset of the tiny subset of people who come to Wikipedia and edit regularly--the community. After nearly eight years there are less than 2400 featured articles, and that accounts for less than one-tenth of one per cent of all Wikipedia articles.

Actually there is evidence that ''most'' Wikipedia content seems to come from those so-called "anonymous IPs" that are so often denigrated as mere vandals by the regular users. See [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia this blog piece] by Aaron Swartz.

The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits. You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism. It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.

Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it. You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license. It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.

Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource. I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database. None of that is educational in a meaningful sense. Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.

: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path. We teach teenagers and adults. Hundreds and thousands of them. We learn ourselves in the process. Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed. I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: I think some of your criticisms of Wikipedia are valid (the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticisms of Wikipedia] documents most if not all criticisms that have been circulated in the mainstream press). But on most academic subjects, particularly science, the quality is extremely high, and the articles would be yours to take and modify to correct any imbalance if you adopted an open content policy compatible with their licence.

:: Wikipedia does cover popular culture but that's a matter of deliberate policy, not an accidental result of permitting open editing. As for the notion that Wikipedia performs no educational function, that's unsustainable even on a cursory examination. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zinc&oldid=563001 Conservapedia's] articles on the metal Zinc, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hundred_Years_War&oldid=594609 Conservapedia's] articles on the Hundred Years War. As for Twelfth Night, the difference between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Night this article] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Twelfth_Night&oldid=456977 this one] could not be more graphic.

:: The notion that having open editing would necessitate low quality just doesn't hold up. Wikipedia aspires to very stringent quality standards and the results, on the most important articles, is impressive by any measure.

:: I won't venture further to criticise the quality of Conservapedia's content, because I think many of the site's users and admins have already brought this out. I do think you could do better. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with both of you equally, and I'm not just saying this to be "neutral". Here at CP we have no "neutrality policy": the core requirement is for articles to be trustworthy.

We certainly do need to be able to share insights and advance knowledge. By doing this, we provide the opportunity for the undecided to maintain an open mind. It is only the far left and the far right that hope for the closing of the American mind (with apologies to [[Allen Bloom]]).

I spent nearly all my spare time helping Wikipedia to grow, because I was learning in the process of helping others to learn. It also provided the basis for the success of the [[New World Encyclopedia]].

Tony, you are right when you stress the ability of anyone to edit any article any time. That is one of the essential elements that led to Wikipedia's exponential growth. But Andy is also right when he criticizes Wikipedia's viability as an educational resource.

The bias of Wikipedia against religion (in general) and against non-leftist ideology (in both politics and science) is just as crippling as having a leg shot off with a cannonball. The anti-elitism, which Larry Sanger pointed out so eloquently, is like having the other leg cut off with a sword. Forgive the violent imagery, but this is a debate page, so I figure I'm entitled to a little slack, eh?

Tony, you are also right when you say that Wikipedia has acknowledged most of the criticisms. This is crucially important, as it will determine when and if Wikipedia can ever reform. Wikipedia took a big hit when the arbcom decided to brand me a "tendentious" editor, when all I was doing was correcting violations of NPOV policy. I could have appealed to Jimbo, but I chose not to. Now, I'm not saying I'm a particularly important person; I'm more like a "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage". But it was the Principle which they violated. Instead of thanking the revealer, they condemned him. (Once again, remember that this is not about me: I am not claiming to be a martyr. I'm fine.) They repeated the mistake of the Greeks who condemned Socrates.

Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help.

I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes.

Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!

Anyway, I'm glad you're here and that you have (apparently) forgiven our initial lack of welcome. I look forward to more conversations with you about how CP and/or WP can improve. And bring your friends! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Taking your complaint about a "liberal filter" operating on Wikipedia, well if you think about it that gives a counter-argument to the notion that open editing leads to anarchy. Your experience is that a policy you disagree with (due weight), and editing practices you don't like ("tag teaming"--which incidentally is ''not'' considered to be a problem by Wikipedia's policies) has led to an outcome you think reflects badly on Wikipedia. This demonstrates that open editing is a relatively weak force in the presence of strong motivation and policy. It introduces diversity, but not (in the case of Wikipedia's science coverage, at least) at the expense of control.

: And of course I don't want to see Conservapedia become like Wikipedia. I don't think open editing and open content would make Conservapedia Wikipedia, because its policies and focus are fundamentally different.

: We could argue about the quality of science coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really want to hijack this page for that side issue. Suffice to say that an analysis published in ''Nature'' found the quality of the science coverage on Wikipedia (including the article on global warming) to be comparable to that of Britannia. The notion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Wikipedia's coverage of global warming] is anomalous can be exploded by a cursory examination of [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/global_warming.html Encarta's article on the subject], and [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming Britannica's]. There are subtle differences of emphasis in all three articles, but they all reflect the IPCC consensus and all provide a good introduction to the subject. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 09:45, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Tony. You have given me food for thought. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:51, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Tony, you're right about one thing: the "policies and focus" of Conservapedia and Wikipedia "are fundamentally different." Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is not a legitimate or helpful educational resource. It is a mixture of gossip, trivia, and [[censorship]] by atheists. I'd guess that you're an undisclosed atheist who is typical of the editors who dominate Wikipedia. Most of us wouldn't send our children to an atheistic school, and for same reason most of us have abandoned Wikipedia for any real learning.

Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years. All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse. It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States. It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: I think we've all aired our opinions. Thanks to Ed and Andy for that. But Andy, you raise a personal matter concerning my religious beliefs.

: I'm only an "undisclosed" atheist in the sense that I don't mention my religious beliefs (or lack of same) except where it's relevant. I sent my children to a regular English school where religion was an integral part of the curriculum. School events such as musical concerts were held across the road in a beautiful Congregationalist church, the [[Union Chapel, Islington]]. I'll write an article about that edifice. I don't know whether you'd consider such a school "atheistic".

: Likewise I don't think Wikipedia is atheistic so much as secular, as is the government of the United States (and I don't think either is in imminent danger of collapse). You will find [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Hinduism|Hindus]], [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Wicca|Wiccans]], and people who like myself don't have any religious beliefs, working alongside one another in Wikipedia as in the US government. I don't think it's at all correct to describe such [[pluralism]] as "atheistic". --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 13:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:: Tony, of course an atheist is going to like an atheistic resource like Wikipedia, and even argue that it is unbiased. Republicans think that George Bush has been a good and fair president, and Democrats tent to think that Barack Obama will be a good and fair president. No surprise, obviously.

:: But you didn't disclose your point of view until I elicited it. And that is a basic problem with Wikipedia. Its key entries are mostly controlled by atheists without admitting it. No meaningful criticism of the theory of evolution, for example, will ever be allowed by the atheists on Wikipedia. No explanation of how atheists censor prayer in the classroom will ever be presented. The undisclosed bias permeates many key entries on Wikipedia and renders it unusable as an objective learning source. If the bias were disclosed, then it would be more useful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: My point of view shouldn't matter in this discussion if my arguments are sound. You will find a neutral discussion of the process by which mandatory prayer, once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the Establishment Clause, in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer Wikipedia article on School Prayer]. None of the key cases involved atheists as parties (with the exception of the case ''Murray v. Curlett'' which was consolidated with a case involving a [[Unitarian]], ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963)). All of them involved conflicts on religious observance between adherents of different, mostly Christian, religious sects. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Tony, [[atheism]] certainly does slant one's opinions. You can't even discuss the [[theory of evolution]] in an objective manner, because you'll desperately insist that it ''must'' somehow be true no matter what the evidence is. You and your fellow Wikipedians will censor all meaningful criticism of the theory. Ditto for prayer in the classroom: atheists insist on censoring, and deny that is what they are doing. The biased Wikipedia entry, which itself admits it lacks quality, does not use the word "censor" once and is permeated with distortions and falsehoods, thanks to the atheists who insist that Wikipedia represent their point of view.

:::: I'm not trying to persuade you. I am telling you that the majority of the world, and the vast majority of productive people, do not want an atheistic teaching source, which is what Wikipedia is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) On some points, I see us talking past each other. Two religious issues raised include the distinction between atheistic and secular outlooks, and the distinction between mandatory and optional prayer.

I think Andy is right about atheism taking hold at Wikipedia, which was co-founded by two atheists: [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]]. At first, they agreed that Wikipedia would be neutral on all religious questions including the existence of God and the ability of supernatural forces/beings to influence the physical world. Somehow that changed, and the "secular" perspective of Wikipedia's articles on issues crucial to the 40% to 85% of Americans who have disagreements with [[Evolution]] has trumped NPOV. The naturalism and materialism of [[physical science]] is taken as a given, rather than made explicit.

On a minor point, I noticed that Andy said ''atheists censor prayer in the classroom'' while Tony replied with a reminder that "[[mandatory prayer]], once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the [[Establishment Clause]]". Tony, did you know that Andy is a lawyer? He's probably familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about religious issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Truth is not a poll. Conservapedia has a conservative view, yes, but it is in truth. Wikipedia accepts evolution as truth, and in that view it exalts everything that agrees with that view, and disagrees with any counter view. As far as Obama, they are questions that need to be answered, that obviously the liberal side would rather cover and ignore. Here is a challenge, go to You Tube and in the search put Barack Obama, and on the list that comes up, rate how many positive videos come up, and how many negative on the first page. Now do the same with Sarah Palin. Notice how the rate of positive versus negative viewpoints change with her.

So to find the TRUTH, it is not about being all inclusive or being politically correct. There is no such thing as objective news anymore because the world has become split on God vs No God, so the correct thing to do is become the best God believing information center in the world.

: Put another way, if someone wants to wander in confusion amid the self-serving lies promoted by atheists, they go to Wikipedia. I think studies show that atheism makes one less charitable and more depressed; [[Nietzsche]], the leading atheist of the 19th century, went crazy. If someone wants the truth and the freedom and [[faith]] that brings, they come here. Ultimately, each person decides for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I would agree

No, it cannot. CP's ideological bias is deliberate and overt, as opposed to Wikipedia's emergent, incidental bias, which undermines the average reader's confidence in CP's information. Wikipedia may be editable by anyone, but CP is guaranteed to contain information that advances a conservative agenda. If there existed a Liberalpedia, it would be just as untrustworthy, but Wikipedia is not such a being. On the day it institutes a "Conservative Tricks" page, we'll talk. -- [[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 00:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

:Incidental bias, what a lovely word. Maybe you would think different if you read http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia They have the most pages on the internet, clap clap clap. I truly believe they have the most anti-God pages as well. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Likeminded people who agree with Osirus1723, where is the external link section of Wikipedia's Criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism Why don't you test your hypothesis that the ideological bias at Wikipedia is incidental? Test it as soon as you read this message by adding a external link section to the Wikipedia criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

The movement toward being as big as Wikipedia will be a tough road. We must follow Ezekiel 2:23 because the way it is written tells us how we can become great and rise above. The downfall of this site will be the sins of homosexuals in their quest to "gay" up the internet. We must work to keep this page solely conservative and keep it to inform the masses the right way, and be better than Liberal Wikipedia.

*I agree with the original poster. This site is going in the opposite direction by applying conservative bias where Wikipedia applies liberal bias. I also disagree with the decision to avoid rules about how to edit. Wikipedia's rules are actually pretty sensible, use a neutral point of view (which does not mean no POV, merely using neutral wording), consensus (which is supposed to involve reasons based on other guidelines, not just a matter of unreasoned, unbased disagreement with an edit - which unfortunately happens on Wikipedia), and no original research (meaning everything is to be backed up, and views given prominence based solely on sourcing). It's actually a good set of rules.

The problem is there's no accountability for admins who don't follow them. What Wikipedia really needs to do is set forth which rules are permissible as an objection to an edit, and require that those who don't provide solid reasoning from this can't be considered as part of the consensus. As Andrew Schafly has said, the result is that Wikipedia can end up acting like a lynch mob. There also needs to be a specific commission just for investigating situations where consensus is occurring without reason. Without that, there's no accountability.

Anyway, I think Conservapedia can become as big as Wikipedia. However, it must seek to start being objective. That can still mean presenting conservative criticisms, but try to present them in order of relevance, meaning directly correlated to their number of reliable sources, and if presented at all otherwise, stick them in a "Minor Controversies" section at the bottom of a page.

Conservapedia must first make its main articles objective and seek to discipline users who shout down others when they are providing well-sourced or reasonable objections. The community must be made fair, in other words, as well as accessible. The Barack Obama article in particular needs a top-down rewriting. After this is done, seek to reform Conservapedia's image as an objective source of information, and a reliable alternative to Wikipedia. Perhaps search engines like Yahoo might be willing to work a deal with Conservapedia so Conservapedia results are shown higher, just as Google did with Wikipedia. However, such a deal would never be considered until Conservapedia makes articles more objective and attracts enough editors to expand its number of pages with quality material.

It would be a long road taking at least 5-10 years for this to even begin. I am willing to help, but want to see Conservapedia begin changing its primary articles and its level of objectivity first. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 09:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)

While I believe CP can eventually grow to be very large, I don't think it will surpass Wikipedia because we, unlike them, support the '''truth''' which certainly does not masquerade as neutrality. Many people are sucked in to Wikipedia by the claim that it is neutral, mostly pseudo - intellectuals who will only further its [[liberal bias]]. We can, however, surpass Wikipedia in the search results as we already have done with many pages. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:33, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Golf

2010-05-29T18:25:18Z

Dford: added origin of "golf" name

'''Golf''' is a [[sport]] that is played by hitting a small ball over long distances with the use of a long metal or wooden club, with the intent of hitting the ball into a very small hole hundreds of feet away. There are 18 ranges on a standard golf course, commonly referred to as "holes." Some courses provide abbreviated nine hole courses as well. Originally a golf course had 10 holes, and players would play from one to the next accross 9 ranges out from and then back in to the first hole, this is where the 18 holes originated.

Golf has become a popular sport, with several professional tours being run by groups such as the [[PGA|Professional Golf Association]] (PGA) or Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) where top prizes can reach $800,000. Only a few people ever play at a professional, level but many more enjoy Golf as a pastime or social activity. The oldest and most venerable golf clubs can be very exclusive institutions, with membership scarce and much sought after.

The four most prestigious tournaments in the golfing calendar (or 'majors') are the United States Open, the US PGA tournament, the Masters, and the British Open (simply called 'the Open' in [[Britain]]). The Masters is always held at [[Augusta]] in [[Georgia]], while the other three are held at a different course each year.

The word "golf" is an [[acronym]] coming from the words "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden".

== See also ==
*[[Lorena Ochoa]]
*[[Tiger Woods]]
*[[Arnold Palmer]]
*[[Lee Masters]]

[[category:Golf]]

Harry Potter

2010-05-29T17:46:31Z

Dford: /* Popularizing the Occult and Mockery of Christianity */

[[Image:67486ruy.jpg|right|thumb|British edition of '''Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'''.]]
The '''''Harry Potter''''' books are a hugely popular<ref> The author has sold 350 million books and counting, been translated into 65 languages and had her work made into highly successful movies. [http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3811481&page=1 ABC News] </ref> series of seven fantasy novels by [[J.K. Rowling]] about three children at a British boarding school for 'witchcraft and wizardry': Harry, Ron and Hermione. The children grow from age 11 to 17 in the books, giving them appeal to a broad range of readers including children and teenagers, but also appealing to adults. Since their release, interest and acceptance of withcraft has increased, particularly among the goth subculture, and many rides and attractions centered around the books are causing children to accept and admire witchcraft and magic.

==Harry Potter==
'''Harry Potter''' is the [[protagonist]] and the plot of each book focuses on Harry's adolescence and fight against the [[antagonist]] wizard Lord Voldemort. The books combine elements of whimsy reminiscent of ''[[Alice in Wonderland]]'', the strange adult immaturity of ''[[Through the Looking Glass]]'', and the implacable good vs. evil fight of ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''.

When Harry was a mere baby, his parents were murdered by the evil [[Voldemort]]. Harry didn't know that his parents were [[wizard (fiction)|wizard]]s until his 11th birthday; it came as a giant surprise. [[Hagrid]] took him to [[Diagon Alley]] for robes, books and wand; then on to [[Hogwarts]], a boarding school for wizards and witches. He had many adventures there learning [[magic]] and using it to fight the forces of the [[Voldemort|wizard]] who killed his [[parent]]s when he was an [[infant]]. Lord Voldemort seeks to become immortal by any means. Voldemort also leads forces of "Death Eaters" who follow Voldemort's ideology of a "pure-blood" (wizard who was born to wizard parents) society and persecute Muggles, non-magical folk. Along the way, Harry learns about life and [[death]] and grapples with questions of [[morality]] and [[friendship]].

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

The ''Harry Potter'' series of books are sizable volumes. The 870 pages of ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'', even though printed in large type, contain 255,000 words—about twice as long as ''A Tale of Two Cities''. The "Lexile" measure of reading level puts the series between 880L and 950L,<ref>For comparison: ''Charlotte's Web'' 680L, ''Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'' 890L, ''Moby Dick'' 1200L</ref> comparable to sixth-grade texts<ref>[http://www.lexile.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?view=fa&tabindex=4&tabid=22 The Lexile framework for reading].</ref>

== Popularizing the Occult and Mockery of Christianity ==

{{spoiler}}
Many conservative Christians have attacked the books. Most mainline Protestant and Catholic leaders have taken a more favorable position. For example, the official organization of American Catholic bishops (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) has rated each film "A-II", --that is, suitable for adults and adolescents and was not found to be morally offensive.The episcopal conference even named the film adaptation of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" one of the ten best family films of 2004.

However conservative critics have charged that the books have the potential of driving children away from Christian knowledge of good and evil toward the occult more than anything else in western society: "a generation of children is becoming desensitized to the occult. But with Hollywood's help, Harry Potter will likely surpass all these influences, potentially reaping some grave spiritual consequences"<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.html</ref>

Witchcraft is expressly forbidden by the Old Testament.

Some Fundamentalists have praised the moral values of the books. For example, Scott Moore, philosophy professor at Baylor University, has found some remarkable Christian symbolism in the Potter series.

James L. Evans, pastor of Crosscreek Baptist Church, concludes, "Instead of condemning Harry, maybe we should learn courage from him to name as evil what apparently we are afraid to speak."<ref>Jim Evans, [http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=2737 "Harry Potter As Teacher Of Christian Values" ''EthicsDaily.com'' June 24, 2003]</ref>

Conservative Christians say the ''Harry Potter'' series is written in a way that embeds fantasy and wizardry into a real world setting. This could potentially lead to some children exploring witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. Indeed, the Pagan Federation in Britain has received a flood of inquiries from young ''Harry Potter'' fans.<ref>About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism - [http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/i/witchcraft_2.htm Does Harry Potter Promote Wicca or Witchcraft? Is Harry Potter a Pagan Book?] (page 2)</ref>

The children's fantasy genre and slick storytelling style may make the danger more severe, say conservatives: "This is a true representation of witchcraft, and the black arts, and black magic. And yet we have people that say this is merely fantasy and harmless reading for our children. Actually, what makes this more dangerous is that it is couched in fantasy language, and children's literature, and made to be humorous, and beautifully written and extremely provocative reading. and it just opens up children to want to have the next one. This is what is so harmful."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.html</ref>

==Criticisms==

The ''Harry Potter'' series is written in a way that embeds fantasy and wizardry into a real world setting. This could potentially lead to some children potentially exploring witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. Indeed, the Pagan Federation in Britain has received a flood of inquiries from young ''Harry Potter'' fans.<ref>About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism - [http://atheism.about.com/od/harrypotter/i/witchcraft_2.htm Does Harry Potter Promote Wicca or Witchcraft? Is Harry Potter a Pagan Book?] (page 2)</ref>

Some expect children's literature to present characters that are role models and teach simple truths that will help children grow and know the difference between right and wrong. However, the world of ''Harry Potter'' is one in which adult authority figures are complex, imperfect, and occasionally ludicrous. Some teachers in the series are boring, or outright incompetent, while others are supportive and protective (like [[Dumbledore]] and [[Lupin]]). In the first book Harry disobeys the teachers and is successful and later praised, a questionable message for younger minds.

The books also present witches and wizards as being both normal people and abundant. This deceit causes children to likewise accept magic and witchcraft as normal, and they identify with the children in the books, again furthering their acceptance and witchcraft. The reality about magic - that witches are evil and, thankfully, not common - is not presented.

==Notable Ban Attempts==

On the week of April 10, 2006, Georgia mother of four Laura Mallory filed an appeal with the Gwinnett Board of Education in an attempt to remove the ''Harry Potter'' series from Gwinnett schools. Ms. Mallory (who has only read excerpts of the books) stated on the appeal form that she wished the books removed due to their "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells and teaching children all of this."<ref>[http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_subchannel_id=&url_article_id=14074&change_well_id=2]</ref> The local board of education denied the request, as they felt the banning of ''Harry Potter'' would necessitate the banning of all books with reference to witches, including plays like ''[[Macbeth]]'' and even stories like [[Cinderella]].<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15127464/ Georgia mom seeks ban on Harry Potter]</ref> Ms. Mallory has since appealed the ruling twice to no avail.<ref>[http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=5022462&nav=8fap]</ref> <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16204853/from/]</ref> <ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/011807dnentpotterprotest.a89cec.html]</ref>

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

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

Also, three companion books have been made to go along with the series: ''The Tale of the Beedle the Bard'', ''Quidditch Through the Ages'', and ''Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them''. ''Quidditch Through the Ages'' and ''Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'' are both written under pen names, but all three are written by J.K. Rowling. <ref>www.jkrowling.org</ref>
==Further reading==
* Brown, Nancy Carpentier. ''The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family Guide'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Harry-Potter-Catholic-Family/dp/1592763987/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254259810&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Cherrett, Lisa. "Harry Potter and the Bible" (2003) [http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/articles/hpandthebible.php online version]
* Cockrell, Amanda. "Harry Potter and the Witch Hunters: a Social Context for the Attacks on 'Harry Potter'", ''Journal of American Culture'' 2006 29(1): 24-30, in [[EBSCO]]
* Colbert, David. ''The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter'' (2nd ed. 2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Magical-Worlds-Harry-Potter-revised/dp/0425223183/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263210737&sr=1-20 excerpt and text search]
* Granger, John. ''Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Harry-Potter-Serious-Reader/dp/0972322124/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211376&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Granger, John. ''Looking for God in Harry Potter'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/How-Harry-Cast-His-Spell/dp/1414321880/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254259810&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search, 2nd edition under ''How Harry Cast His Spell'']
* Heilman, Elizabeth E., ed. ''Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter'' (2nd. ed. 2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Perspectives-Potter-Elizabeth-Heilman/dp/0415964849/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211512&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Neal, Connie W. ''The Gospel According to Harry Potter: The Spiritual Journey of the World's Greatest Seeker'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Harry-Potter-Spiritual/dp/0664231233/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263211376&sr=1-33 excerpt and text search]
* Thomas, James W. ''Repotting Harry Potter: A Professor's Book-by-Book Guide for the Serious Re-Reader'' (2009)
* Whited, Lana A., ed. ''The Ivory Tower And Harry Potter: Perspectives On A Literary Phenomenon'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Ivory-Tower-Harry-Potter-Perspectives/dp/0826215491/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Harry Potter Universe]]
[[Category:Novels]]
[[Category:Ghost Stories]]
[[Category:Anti-christian]]

User:Dford

2010-05-29T17:16:55Z

Dford: Created page with 'I've been using Conservapedia for awhile now and have decided to start contributing. I'm new to wikis so please forgive me if I make some errors.'

I've been using Conservapedia for awhile now and have decided to start contributing. I'm new to wikis so please forgive me if I make some errors.

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

2010-05-29T17:12:49Z

Dford: Created page with 'Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is a video game fir the GBA and Nintendo DS in which the player assumes the identity of a lawyer trying to acquit his clients of [[mu…'

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is a [[video game]] fir the [[GBA]] and [[Nintendo DS]] in which the player assumes the identity of a [[lawyer]] trying to acquit his clients of [[murder]]. The game has been criticised for offering an unbalanced view of the American legal system and demonising [[prosecutors]].

Capcom

2010-05-29T17:07:04Z

Dford: /* List of popular game franchises */ fixed typo, added links

Capcom is a Japanese based [[video game]] company who produces many popular video games series' such as Megaman or Street Fighter
==List of popular game franchises==
[[Megaman]]

[[Resident Evil]]

[[Street Fighter]]

[[Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]

==References==

==See also==
[[Nintendo]]
==External links==
[http://www.capcom.com/ Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]