Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservative parables

2016-04-24T17:15:27Z

Dracofulmen: hi

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories are typically based on real events.

== The Broken Bicycle ==

One morning in [[New York City]] a crowd of pedestrians waited for the streetlight to change so that they could cross the intersection. The sidewalk corner was crowded with people, as it often is, and one pedestrian stepped slightly into the street in anticipation of crossing it. But at that moment a messenger on a bicycle was moving quickly through the intersection, and was thrown off balance by hitting the pedestrian's foot. The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair.

The crowd gasped in horror, but the bicyclist was unharmed. His bicycle, however, had been ruined. One bystander, observing that the fault was due to the pedestrian, wanted to donate so that the bicyclist could buy a replacement. But the bystander could not afford to give him much money. So instead the bystander took out a $5 bill and handed it to the bicyclist in front of the crowd.

Others then followed that example and made donations of their own to the bicyclist. Before long he had enough to buy a replacement for his bicycle, and was back at work by the afternoon.

== 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.

hi

hi

== 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>

hi

== The [[Prodigal Son]] Has Children ==

A good man had two sons. One of them was defiant and insisted on ignoring and disobeying his father, leaving him, and then squandering his money on immoral living in a distant land. He refused to return to his father to ask forgiveness.

Eventually the defiant son had children of his own. Living in squalor, his own suffering children would ask him about their grandfather. One day his own children asked why they never visit Grandpa.

For the first time the man looked at himself objectively, and realized how illogical and wrong it was for him to abandon his own father. He finally returned to home to ask for forgiveness, and brought his children with him.

==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 several weeks after they were allowed to fly.

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 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>

== 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>

== 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 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, as she worked with other people in a group. Most of them were competent and they all worked more or less to the best of their abilities. However, due to the fact that she had formed the group, she got to distribute the grades and often saved the best for herself, based solely on the fact that she formed the group, rather than on individual performance and despite the fact that all the others worked just as hard and contributed just as much,

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. She hasn't sucked up to anyone, nor has she been particularly ruthless. As a result, I've only given her a 2.0, despite her working just as hard as me. 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 formed the group! I had an idea that others, like Audrey, improved upon and then combined with their own ideas, then I took the credit and praise. I should be the one who gets the grades, even if the others are putting forth just as much if not more effort.'

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.

== The Pitcher, the Chicken, and the Crow ==
A thirsty chicken and a thirsty crow were each given a pitcher of water. First they tried reaching into the pitchers with their beaks, but neither could reach the water. Then they tried pushing the pitchers over, but they were heavy and sturdily built so they would not tip.

The chicken began flapping its wings and strutted up to the crow. "No fair!" squawked the chicken "the greedy farmer hasn't given us enough water." The crow shrugged, and began hopping around the pitcher, looking at it this way and that.

The chicken strutted off and went to complain to the farmer. It squawked and squawked, but the farmer ignored it. It went back to the crow, who was grabbing pebbles in his beak and dropping them into its pitcher with pebbles. "Come with me!" it said, "Let's demand that the farmer give us our water!" The crow ignored it and returned to his work.

The chicken went again to the farmer and decided to take its protest to the next level. It scratched and pecked at the farmer's leg, cutting the skin, until the farmer angrily kicked it away. Indignant, the chicken went back to the crow, squawking more than ever. "That brutal farmer kicked me," it complained. "when all I was doing was demanding my rights."

By this point the crow was standing on the top of his pitcher, happily drinking. He had dropped enough pebbles into the pitcher that the water level had risen nearly to the top. The chicken saw this and walked up to the crow to complain. "Unfair!" it cried. "I want water too."

The crow looked over at the chicken and told him: "I have water because while you were complaining, I was looking for a way to get the water. The first two ways did not work, but I kept trying until I came up with something better. Then I patiently put in the hard work to put my plan into action, and now, finally, I can drink. You can do the same with your pitcher, and you will have water too. You are bigger and stronger than me, so it will be even easier for you."

The chicken strutted over to his pitcher and picked up one pebble and dropped it in and sat down. "This is hard work!" it complained "I'm thirsty and I'm tired."

The crow looked over at the chicken and said "just this one time I will be charitable. You can drink from my pitcher, but next time you must do the work yourself."

The chicken hopped up and stuck its head down. Because its beak was shorter than the crow's, it could not quite reach the water.

"You cheated me!" it cried, "I cannot reach the water!"

"I am sorry," said the crow, "but you are only a few pebbles short. Surely you can do the tiny bit of work yourself."

The crow flew off, its thirst satiated. The chicken scratched at the ground and squawked and squawked but nobody would listen and it stayed thirsty.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] Example 3 [the enacted parable]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative parables

2016-04-24T17:13:43Z

Dracofulmen: hi

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories are typically based on real events.

== The Broken Bicycle ==

One morning in [[New York City]] a crowd of pedestrians waited for the streetlight to change so that they could cross the intersection. The sidewalk corner was crowded with people, as it often is, and one pedestrian stepped slightly into the street in anticipation of crossing it. But at that moment a messenger on a bicycle was moving quickly through the intersection, and was thrown off balance by hitting the pedestrian's foot. The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair.

The crowd gasped in horror, but the bicyclist was unharmed. His bicycle, however, had been ruined. One bystander, observing that the fault was due to the pedestrian, wanted to donate so that the bicyclist could buy a replacement. But the bystander could not afford to give him much money. So instead the bystander took out a $5 bill and handed it to the bicyclist in front of the crowd.

Others then followed that example and made donations of their own to the bicyclist. Before long he had enough to buy a replacement for his bicycle, and was back at work by the afternoon.

== 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.

hi

hi

== 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 [[Prodigal Son]] Has Children ==

A good man had two sons. One of them was defiant and insisted on ignoring and disobeying his father, leaving him, and then squandering his money on immoral living in a distant land. He refused to return to his father to ask forgiveness.

Eventually the defiant son had children of his own. Living in squalor, his own suffering children would ask him about their grandfather. One day his own children asked why they never visit Grandpa.

For the first time the man looked at himself objectively, and realized how illogical and wrong it was for him to abandon his own father. He finally returned to home to ask for forgiveness, and brought his children with him.

==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 several weeks after they were allowed to fly.

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 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>

== 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>

== 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 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, as she worked with other people in a group. Most of them were competent and they all worked more or less to the best of their abilities. However, due to the fact that she had formed the group, she got to distribute the grades and often saved the best for herself, based solely on the fact that she formed the group, rather than on individual performance and despite the fact that all the others worked just as hard and contributed just as much,

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. She hasn't sucked up to anyone, nor has she been particularly ruthless. As a result, I've only given her a 2.0, despite her working just as hard as me. 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 formed the group! I had an idea that others, like Audrey, improved upon and then combined with their own ideas, then I took the credit and praise. I should be the one who gets the grades, even if the others are putting forth just as much if not more effort.'

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.

== The Pitcher, the Chicken, and the Crow ==
A thirsty chicken and a thirsty crow were each given a pitcher of water. First they tried reaching into the pitchers with their beaks, but neither could reach the water. Then they tried pushing the pitchers over, but they were heavy and sturdily built so they would not tip.

The chicken began flapping its wings and strutted up to the crow. "No fair!" squawked the chicken "the greedy farmer hasn't given us enough water." The crow shrugged, and began hopping around the pitcher, looking at it this way and that.

The chicken strutted off and went to complain to the farmer. It squawked and squawked, but the farmer ignored it. It went back to the crow, who was grabbing pebbles in his beak and dropping them into its pitcher with pebbles. "Come with me!" it said, "Let's demand that the farmer give us our water!" The crow ignored it and returned to his work.

The chicken went again to the farmer and decided to take its protest to the next level. It scratched and pecked at the farmer's leg, cutting the skin, until the farmer angrily kicked it away. Indignant, the chicken went back to the crow, squawking more than ever. "That brutal farmer kicked me," it complained. "when all I was doing was demanding my rights."

By this point the crow was standing on the top of his pitcher, happily drinking. He had dropped enough pebbles into the pitcher that the water level had risen nearly to the top. The chicken saw this and walked up to the crow to complain. "Unfair!" it cried. "I want water too."

The crow looked over at the chicken and told him: "I have water because while you were complaining, I was looking for a way to get the water. The first two ways did not work, but I kept trying until I came up with something better. Then I patiently put in the hard work to put my plan into action, and now, finally, I can drink. You can do the same with your pitcher, and you will have water too. You are bigger and stronger than me, so it will be even easier for you."

The chicken strutted over to his pitcher and picked up one pebble and dropped it in and sat down. "This is hard work!" it complained "I'm thirsty and I'm tired."

The crow looked over at the chicken and said "just this one time I will be charitable. You can drink from my pitcher, but next time you must do the work yourself."

The chicken hopped up and stuck its head down. Because its beak was shorter than the crow's, it could not quite reach the water.

"You cheated me!" it cried, "I cannot reach the water!"

"I am sorry," said the crow, "but you are only a few pebbles short. Surely you can do the tiny bit of work yourself."

The crow flew off, its thirst satiated. The chicken scratched at the ground and squawked and squawked but nobody would listen and it stayed thirsty.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] Example 3 [the enacted parable]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative parables

2016-04-24T17:12:33Z

Dracofulmen: hi

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories are typically based on real events.

== The Broken Bicycle ==

One morning in [[New York City]] a crowd of pedestrians waited for the streetlight to change so that they could cross the intersection. The sidewalk corner was crowded with people, as it often is, and one pedestrian stepped slightly into the street in anticipation of crossing it. But at that moment a messenger on a bicycle was moving quickly through the intersection, and was thrown off balance by hitting the pedestrian's foot. The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair.

The crowd gasped in horror, but the bicyclist was unharmed. His bicycle, however, had been ruined. One bystander, observing that the fault was due to the pedestrian, wanted to donate so that the bicyclist could buy a replacement. But the bystander could not afford to give him much money. So instead the bystander took out a $5 bill and handed it to the bicyclist in front of the crowd.

Others then followed that example and made donations of their own to the bicyclist. Before long he had enough to buy a replacement for his bicycle, and was back at work by the afternoon.

== 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.

hi

== 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 [[Prodigal Son]] Has Children ==

A good man had two sons. One of them was defiant and insisted on ignoring and disobeying his father, leaving him, and then squandering his money on immoral living in a distant land. He refused to return to his father to ask forgiveness.

Eventually the defiant son had children of his own. Living in squalor, his own suffering children would ask him about their grandfather. One day his own children asked why they never visit Grandpa.

For the first time the man looked at himself objectively, and realized how illogical and wrong it was for him to abandon his own father. He finally returned to home to ask for forgiveness, and brought his children with him.

==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 several weeks after they were allowed to fly.

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 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>

== 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>

== 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 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, as she worked with other people in a group. Most of them were competent and they all worked more or less to the best of their abilities. However, due to the fact that she had formed the group, she got to distribute the grades and often saved the best for herself, based solely on the fact that she formed the group, rather than on individual performance and despite the fact that all the others worked just as hard and contributed just as much,

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. She hasn't sucked up to anyone, nor has she been particularly ruthless. As a result, I've only given her a 2.0, despite her working just as hard as me. 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 formed the group! I had an idea that others, like Audrey, improved upon and then combined with their own ideas, then I took the credit and praise. I should be the one who gets the grades, even if the others are putting forth just as much if not more effort.'

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.

== The Pitcher, the Chicken, and the Crow ==
A thirsty chicken and a thirsty crow were each given a pitcher of water. First they tried reaching into the pitchers with their beaks, but neither could reach the water. Then they tried pushing the pitchers over, but they were heavy and sturdily built so they would not tip.

The chicken began flapping its wings and strutted up to the crow. "No fair!" squawked the chicken "the greedy farmer hasn't given us enough water." The crow shrugged, and began hopping around the pitcher, looking at it this way and that.

The chicken strutted off and went to complain to the farmer. It squawked and squawked, but the farmer ignored it. It went back to the crow, who was grabbing pebbles in his beak and dropping them into its pitcher with pebbles. "Come with me!" it said, "Let's demand that the farmer give us our water!" The crow ignored it and returned to his work.

The chicken went again to the farmer and decided to take its protest to the next level. It scratched and pecked at the farmer's leg, cutting the skin, until the farmer angrily kicked it away. Indignant, the chicken went back to the crow, squawking more than ever. "That brutal farmer kicked me," it complained. "when all I was doing was demanding my rights."

By this point the crow was standing on the top of his pitcher, happily drinking. He had dropped enough pebbles into the pitcher that the water level had risen nearly to the top. The chicken saw this and walked up to the crow to complain. "Unfair!" it cried. "I want water too."

The crow looked over at the chicken and told him: "I have water because while you were complaining, I was looking for a way to get the water. The first two ways did not work, but I kept trying until I came up with something better. Then I patiently put in the hard work to put my plan into action, and now, finally, I can drink. You can do the same with your pitcher, and you will have water too. You are bigger and stronger than me, so it will be even easier for you."

The chicken strutted over to his pitcher and picked up one pebble and dropped it in and sat down. "This is hard work!" it complained "I'm thirsty and I'm tired."

The crow looked over at the chicken and said "just this one time I will be charitable. You can drink from my pitcher, but next time you must do the work yourself."

The chicken hopped up and stuck its head down. Because its beak was shorter than the crow's, it could not quite reach the water.

"You cheated me!" it cried, "I cannot reach the water!"

"I am sorry," said the crow, "but you are only a few pebbles short. Surely you can do the tiny bit of work yourself."

The crow flew off, its thirst satiated. The chicken scratched at the ground and squawked and squawked but nobody would listen and it stayed thirsty.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] Example 3 [the enacted parable]
{{Conservatism}}

Conversion therapy

2016-04-24T17:10:51Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Liberal claptrap

2016-04-24T17:10:02Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Faith

2016-04-24T17:09:08Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Christianity

2016-04-24T17:06:00Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Atheism

2016-04-24T17:00:22Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Leonard Feeney

2016-04-24T16:58:02Z

Dracofulmen: hi

Conservapedia talk:About

2016-04-24T16:56:18Z

Dracofulmen: talk edit

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Wiki should be deleted==

As an atheistic, liberal, culturally jewish, pro–choice, pro–LGBT rights, pro–evolution, pro–science white male, I think that this wiki is an unfixable pile of crap. It is not trustworthy. It should be smited.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

:I can understand the frustrations of Mrreaper; he just got more criticism for responding profoundly to sin than abortionists get for dismembering a healthy preborn child, or NEA public school teachers get for raping the minds of children, or public ALA librarians get for providing a special teen section including erotica, or even pedophiles get for damaging the physical and psychological lives and health of children and teens. Such are the tenets of the NEA and ALA. (Thank heavens not all doctors, teachers, and librarians believe that way! - on Wikipedia it might be only the pseudo-doctors, teachers, and librarians who do not believe that way!!) We are constantly bombarded with the opinion that homosexuality is "normal" and not a matter of choice; and because even homosexuals themselves tend to feel guilty, it seems urgent to some that everyone agree that it is normal. It is very frustrating for a person to deal with feelings of guilt, and even a word or look can cause those concerns to well up. I know it is difficult to get past the anger because there is good reason to be angry; but only our Heavenly Father can handle it; and giving it over to Him, and forgiving "RT Kendall-style" is at the heart of the Gospel. It may help to realize that so many people today involved in every form of perversion have been sexually abused, seduced, and/or lied to since infancy; and too many have been tenderly "protected" from the Gospel of the Bible. [[User: MourningWarbler|MourningWarbler]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

The above opinion by "the white christian male" is all based on hate and fear and not based on facts and science and should be removed. It also is inciting hate and violence and should be removed. I am also a Christian. He foes not speak for all Christians.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

It is '''very''' misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- [[User:RWest|RWest]] 9:38, 27 July 2007

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people {{unsigned|Eljawa}}

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

==FBI investigation==
Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::And which people are curious about it at this time? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253308&oldid=253305],and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253329&oldid=253320], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=255042&oldid=255039], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3AAbout&diff=255057&oldid=255056]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Does anyone know how long "internet harrassment" investigations usually take?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::::OMG Conservative's asking about the FBI *BAN HIM* sorry :)

== Date ==

Could someone dewiki the date? This is the last holdout in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/2006 2006] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== NAME CHANGE ? ==

I love what you are doing, but with your passionate commitment to truth (unlike Wikipedia and the left-wing blogosphere) the name "conservapedia" tends to paint you as too narrow. You deserve to be widely used and cited, by all who want to learn useful and truthful information.

== You're missing a trick ==

Hello. I've created a new user really just to comment on this page. I'm a Wikipedia editor (different username) who's getting more and more fed up with their anti-christian bias, especially regarding the use of BCE/CE. However, I'm also not happy with Wikipedia's pro-American (yes, that's right) bias. This manifests itself in the way many articles are written and edited by contributors who don't seem to realise there's a whole world out there. Many topics are covered purely from the American point-of-view. Today I found out about Conservapedia (it was used as an example of "where to go" by an admin who was admonishing a user for making a perfectly valid BCE --> BC change) but was disappointed to note the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia, which states that it attempts to counteract the perceived anti-American bias of Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should make Conservapedia more global; get rid of the logo, for example, and if you do put an American slant on things, then maybe you shouldn't. I will look more at Conservapedia (I found out about it only 15 minutes ago!) to see if this really is the case. I hope it isn't, because there's a global opportunity here to fight against the political correctness of Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. [[User:SilasStoat|SilasStoat]] 16:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: There was an intention months ago to replace the logo, and Conservapedia has eased back on its pro-American stance a bit (which, being an Aussie, I'm glad of). However, I think that you are comparing two slightly different matters.
:# Wikipedia has a pro-American bias in that a large proportion of its editors are American, and therefore tend to write from an American perspective, being ignorant of the rest of the world. So there might be a lot written on George Washington, but relatively little on Winston Churchill (these are just hypothetical examples).
:# However, Wikipedia tends to have an anti-American bias in the sense of denigrating America and its place in the world. Leftists/liberals in western society tend to run their own countries down (I see it here in Oz too), particularly if a conservative government is in power, and with a high proportion of such people in Wikipedia, they tend to denigrate western ideals, which tends to mean denigrating America, being in some ways the epitome of those ideals.
: And it's number 2 that Conservapedia is opposed to, I believe, although in the process, it does strongly have problem number 1, unfortunately.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Grammar ==

Could someone with greater editing powers edit the line "do you know what pretzels have their shape". [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Got it. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==David Barton is one of my heroes!!!!==

Wikipedia is most certainly biased against freedom of thought - no possible explanation for our existence is allowed except evolution. Wikapedians I dealt with were bullies. Could I post my little ditty about David Barton here? Wikipedians would not allow me to make even changes to create an actual article, but preferred the random ramblings of those who hate David Barton; they banned me and told me to "cool off" when I kept reposting my additions; I left in all but the most redundant "pseudo-historian" drivel. Looking through the history, others had also tried to make an unbiased article, but they also had been expelled! [[User: MourningWarbler|MourningWarbler]]
:Go ahead and write the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== A page for PIPA, the Program on International Political Attitudes ==

I was hoping to find some indepth information on PIPA but can't find anything on Conservapedia. I really want to get some unbiased info rather than the slanted info I keep finding on Wiki.. Can someone add such a page?
:Why not do so yourself? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== You Serious? ==

I would like to say I am shocked. But, after all this is Conservatism we are talking about. A belief system completely based in fantasy. What, you think the bible is to liberal?! I have got news for you, REALITY IS LIBERALLY BIAS. It doesn't mean to be, it just is.
That weapons company sells weapons cheaper to 3rd world countries, not because it is the liberally bias thing to do. They do because it is called reality. Showing war as being horrible and evil is not liberally bias, it is because war IS horrible and evil. Exposing poverty as avoidable and unnecessary isn't liberally bias, it IS merely avoidable and unnecessary.
Lets take the first post for example. Obviously an agent for some white supremacist group or something. Claiming that the white man is oppressed. Typical conservative view. HOWEVER, if you look at the REALITY (better known to you guys as LIBERAL BIAS) the white man is still on top and has been for a thousand years.

You all are merely the next link in the chain that is to be the Orwellian State that you are trying to create on earth. God even speaks of it in the bible. Revelations tells of a people mislead by a great evil. Surprise! you are those people. Funny thing is you think everyone BUT you are the mislead ones. Sorry, if you were more based in REALITY (liberal bias to you guys) you would see that is not the case.

Now go ahead and alter what I have said. It appears that when the truth is spoken, you choose to distort it to suit your perverted needs. The bible has been edited so much I guess it was inevitable that political extremists come along and put their twist on it. Has happened before, and probably won't be the last.

: I can tell you're liberal just by your high word-to-substance ratio. If you really believed what you say, then you'd be protesting Obama's position about Afghanistan. Nope, I bet you support Obama 100%. You're not anti-war, you're a liberal who uses anti-war arguments only when they suit you. That's why people are liberal, so they can cling to [[double standard]]s as they like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

: I can tell your a conservative by your 'I know you are but what am I argument'. If you really believed anything you say you would be protesting Bush's war for profit in Iraq. Double standards like Mark Foley you mean? Or maybe Tom Delay... He was found innocent because his bribe was in the form of a check. The ultimate in double standards. Conservatives cling to the illusion that they some how represent morality. What is moral about adultery, war, and exploitation? But, I see you are rewriting the bible to give yourself that morality you so desperately crave.

:Liberalism's version of bias has severe distortions of the truth; defense of adultery and any other kind of sexual perversion; defense of drug use and abuse. Liberalism has a history of attacking God, Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible, which is now proven once more by their attacks on the Conservative Bible Project within and without this website. Liberals have supported cold-blooded murderers (read William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn) and dictators (read Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez), as well as cold-blooded murder (read abortion). Liberals claim freedom of speech, the press, and the right to assemble, but continue to try shutting down conservative speech, press, and assembly via bills set before Congress or the mocking of events like the Tea Party movement. Truth and facts do not have a liberal bias; they have their own bias, and the fact is, liberals cannot take the truth when they are exposed for what they are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Writing ==

Leaving aside the political, ideological, religious, nationalistic etc. aspects of your project, I have to ask one question: Why is the quality of the writing here almost invariably abysmal? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:"Angus", do us all a favor and go whine somewhere else. Your contributions are nothing to brag about, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Conservapedia template ==

May I suggest that the Conservapedia template "<nowiki>{{Conservapedia}}</nowiki>" be added to the bottom portion of this article? I think it goes well with the message and can assist with other guidelines/rules/themes not mentioned here. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 01:06, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Great suggestion, DerekE! Done. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality

2016-04-24T16:48:35Z

Dracofulmen: talk addition

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Potential removal of religious and homophobic bias ==

This article, like this entire wiki, is heavily biased toward a conservative christian perspective that takes a literal reading of the bible. This needs to be removed.

== 8 major identical twin studies demonstrate homosexuality is not genetic ==

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic 0[[User:Conservative|Conservative]]5:28, 15 January 2015 (EST)

== Cleaning up ==

There are WAY too many sections and subsections on this page, I'm going to see if I can combine the major information and remove the subsections with little content to make the Table of Contents readable. There are actually sections with two sentences or less right now. That kind of material would be better left in subpages or just referred to in the See also section; perhaps mentioned briefly in another section. I'd like to clean up the page so it is more readable though. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 20:35, 25 January 2015 (EST)
:[[User:Conservative]] I saw the page was recently protected. If you dislike the edits being made, can you tell me what exactly you disagreed with? By and large I just moved material around to trim unnecessary categories or duplicate sources, and added sections on xenoestrogens and polling.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&action=historysubmit&diff=1135467&oldid=1134830] My next edit by the way was going to involve moving the Ex-homosexuals section into the Personal Choice section. Just through categorizing, moving sections with little to no content into other areas, I had reduced the number of total sections from 35 to 16 and was about to reduce it to 15 so that the Table of Contents would be readable. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:20, 25 January 2015 (EST)
::JZambrano, I admire your zeal. At the same time, at this juncture, I have multiple demands on my time and I am unable work with you on major revisions to this article. And wouldn't be fair to the people I made promises to for me to get involved in such a project. It would cause unnecessary delays which they would not appreciate.

::At a future time, perhaps we can revisit this matter. In the meantime, I suggest contacting [[User:Daniel1212]] and perhaps you two could discuss your suggestions as far as improving article. Daniel1212 created a lot of homosexuality related content to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:53, 25 January 2015 (EST)

:::I notice Daniel hasn't done much editing since 2012 and none since October. Will he be online enough for that? I did leave them a message just in case. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:23, 26 January 2015 (EST)
::::It is going to have to be enough for now. And another person who edits using the User: Conservative account has a demanding job and is now a part-time business owner too. So I know that person cannot help as well. It is a particularly busy time for that person.

::::Second, you wanted to give a strong emphasis to xenoestrogens in the article and place the material near the very top of the article. I don't foresee such a change happening.

::::Lastly, I know you want to discuss this matter further right now, but I politely decline to do so given my present commitments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:02, 26 January 2015 (EST)

:::::Alright, I was just curious where the objection lay. I have no problem with moving the xenoestrogen material further down on the page. Were there any other concerns about the proposed edits? --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:26, 29 January 2015 (EST)

== It should be illegal ==

I am tired of seeing fellow members of my community being converted into homosexuals. The countries of the world should just ban homosexuality and make it a crime so as to prevent younger minds with potential being indoctrinated by this evil. {{unsigned|JoaoV}}
:A user that one of your collective have [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JoaoV blocked] user:conservative. Why block him then restore his edit after JoeyJ has removed it? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 12:05, 1 March 2015 (EST)
::Cons, I don't often agree with you, but I must give credit where credit is due. (Ooh! Another idiom article to write! I'm way behind.) You did exactly the right thing in restoring Joao's edits. You of course used the principle that talk pages are ongoing journals of a discussion, and edits are not to be removed unless they are libelous. I don't agree with Joao's comment, but I think it's within the realm of acceptable comments here. By the way, I used to have a coworker generally called John, but his real (Hispanic) given name was Joao.
::While I'm heaping praise on you, you recently replied to something underneath a paragraph, by someone else, that had two of the grammatical and stylistic errors that I used to accuse you of.
::And now I see that you have unblocked him. Congratulations. Joao will now have the distinction of having been unblocked by <s>the person most hated at RW</s> probably CP's most interesting admin, one who does not often unblock people :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:37, 1 March 2015 (EST)
=== JoaoV's response ===

::Thanks for unblocking me. My intention is to use this wiki for educative purposes, I don't want to cause trouble. Concerning homosexuality, I am glad that you are trying to undo it and these articles are very informative. I beg you to forive me though for having a more cynical view of it however as my experiences with homosexuality in my neighbour have been purely negative. See, here is my problem: I have seen good, upstanding neighbours that were previously heterosexual (I do not believe that "I was in denial" myth) and had girlfriends and went to church being converted. We all got along well and even though in my neigbourhood there were differences among various denominations, we never criticized each other. We were all Christian after all. Then one day a number of college-age deviants start going door to door and asking us to answer to bizarre questionaries (at one point I heard one of them ask (and I joke you not) "What's your wildest sex fantasy?". You notice that I previously used the word "converted". Well, you see, most of us either tried to tell them about The Lord when the weird questions started and a few of us didn't bother to answer, but a young male member of our community not only answered them earnestly but actually invited them inside. After that day, everything went downhill in our community as apparently the deviants were there to "inform" our neighbourhood and others about various laws concerning homosexuality and other deviations and how the law ''protected'' such degeneracy. It began with the male neighbour (whose name was Joaquim). He began to flaunt that he was "no longer going to lie" and "that he was going true to his self". He, who had been a model citizen and neighbour up to that point, had been successfully converted into the religion of the homosexuals. I do not know what tactics they used or why they did it, but I '''know''' that Joaquim was not "born that way". He openly challenged God by behaving like a sodomite and trying to coax others into joining him. As Joaquim was not just a neighbour but my friend I tried to convert him back to the true faith, but my efforts were in vain. I don't know what tactics the deviants used, but my friend had a spiritual death that day. His faith died. The one before us afterwards was just another deviant of the bunch - worse, he had become a missionary of their wicked cult. And what had once been a great neighbourhood suddenly became a den of degeneracy and corruption. A man a few streets below started to wear womens' clothing, a few more started to preach the homosexual lifestyle and a worrying number of adolescents were admitting to "trying things". Those of us who still cling to tradition tried to show them the light but they would not listen - the alure of the flesh was greater to them than the word of The Lord. That day my hope for peace died. I stopped turning the other cheek. I started shunning them and others even condemned them in public. At the very least we managed to keep them away from our homes and children. Others are doing so as well and although our neighbourhood is not the same at least it's purifying itself. The reason I want homosexuality banned is not to persecute homosexuals. It is to prevent good people, like Joaquim, from being corrupted. Every time I recall this story I feel like I have failed myself because Joaquim was a long time friend. Our group of friends had shared with him movies, church goings, sports, and videogames. He had made our lives better by being our friend. But because he couldn't resist temptation - and because he was tempted in the first place - there is now an empty seat whenever we try to make a group activity. This saddens me. What could I have done to convert him back? Is there still hope for him? Doubt started to linger in my heart. "You're not my friends. Friends don't judge their friends." Joaquim said. But he was wrong. If a friend commits a crime and you are called to judge him, God demands that we answer with the truth. We must show mercy and compassion, but we must not lie. Well, thanks for reading my story. I'm sorry to have let it out here, it's just... I wish homosexuality didn't exist. I want our group of friends to be complete as it once was. --[[User:JoaoV|JoaoV]] 23:52, 5 March 2015 (EST)

== "Causes of homosexuality" ==

The section entitled "Causes of homosexuality" does not address its purported topic at all, but merely serves as a brief introduction to several topics to be addressed later in the article. This section (along with most of the rest of the article, IMO) is in need of a serious rewrite. [[User:IsabellW|IsabellW]] 23:19, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

== God's Greatest Commandment ==

I would, as a God fearing conservative, like to have the sentence that refers to homosexuality being condemned more than any other act in the Holy Bible to be removed. Yes it is condemned, but I think that this view ignores God's greatest commandment: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. If that is his greatest commandment then NOT loving your neighbor as yourself would be the greatest sin. Do not mistake me here, homosexuality is a sin, but just not quite the most evil of them all.

Black hole

2016-04-24T16:40:17Z

Dracofulmen: removed extensive conservative and antiscientific bias

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
'''Black holes''' are entities which cannot be directly observed but probably exist. Suggested by the [[theory of relativity]] (see [[Examples of Relativity]]), black holes are collapsed objects, usually [[stars]], which have become so [[dense]] that, within a certain radius, their [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, they absorb all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape..

Black holes have never been directly observed, but there is direct evidence for their existence, as they noticeably affect surrounding bodies and light and their accretion disks emit radiation. Like positrons, their existence was predicted (in both cases based on relativity) before there was any actual evidence of their existence.

Black holes come into existence from extremely large stars that collapse into a state of high density when they reach the end of their lives. An object becomes a black hole when it lies entirely inside the Schwarzschild radius (see below) determined by its mass. For most objects, the Schwarzschild radius is very tiny compared with its size (for Earth it is about 1 centimeter), so the object does not lie inside that radius.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these [[Singularity|singularities]] impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term referring to a point in an equation at which one would have to solve by dividing by zero, a feat presently impossible in mathematics) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes described with classical mechanics only have three intrinsic properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Quantum mechanics, which postulates that information loss cannot occur in a black hole, suggests properties beyond the three suggested by classical physics. Using this description, information must also be emitted by black holes. This radiation, referred to as Hawking Radiation, is thermal radiation that has currently only been described mathematically.

Although radiation from inside the event horizon has not yet been observed, there is much phenomenon that occurs outside the horizon due to the black hole. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

==Methods of Observation==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, their nature is determined from phenomena outside of the Schwarzschild radius. Scientists have located and observed objects likely to be black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. Wobble effects, however, cannot be used to conclusively prove the existence of a black hole. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that when described by quantum mechanics, they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." The "Black Hole of Calcutta" long predates the celestial use of the term; it was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]