Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?

2009-05-06T16:55:33Z

EelisA: /* Not Necessarily */

==Not Necessarily==
I understand killing yourself is an ultimatum sin. But what about people who suffer from depression? They have a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them intense grief. They become so helpless they turn to suicide. Would God punish someone for dieing of cancer? Someone who commits suicide from depression is not thinking with a clear mind due to the depression. However, their are those who commit suicide out of cowardice. I believe those who commit suicide to escape punishment are the ones who go to hell. Not the ones who can't mentally control their emotions. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 24:05, 15 March 2009.

:Just as we don't know who goes to Heaven or hell (that is for Jesus alone to decide), we don't know if all suicides end in hell. The mercy of God's love is not fathomable. All humans are not worthy of God's glory, yet he loves us no matter. I can see instance where a good holy person and mother loses a child to suicide. The Lord would never break her eternal heart saying she must separate her from her beloved offspring in Heaven, because of the evil one's bidding. For all we know, some suicides may end up in Purgatory. This being just a purification stop with a guarantee of Heaven eventually.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

::Strictly speaking, suicide is a mortal sin, but not an ''unforgivable'' sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I think we have reason to hope that, in at least some cases, suicide is forgiven. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::In the Divine Comedy, only one suicide is shown outside Hell, namely [[Cato the Younger]], who guards the gate of Purgatory. He committed suicide rather than surrender, which the Romans considered a noble act. However, Dante doesn't explain why Cato should escape Hell so the exact reasoning behind his placement is a bit of a mystery, even for scholars.

:::I forgot about Purgatory jpatt. As for Dante one should remember he was going on the seven vices and came up with it from his imagination. However Dante gave a great perspective. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:30, 15 March 2009

::::I don't think all suicides go to Hell. For example: King Saul, the first king of Israel, falls on his own sword after a horrible defeat and to escape capture by the Philistines. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=31] In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that committing suicide automatically send you to Hell. As stated above, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I think that ''if'' the Bible said suicide was okay, lots of people would be killing themselves just to get to Heaven.) -[[User:Solomos|Christopher Solomos]] 01:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I've heard it said that suicide is a sin because it is the intentional destruction of a gift of God. Not only that, its the intentional destruction of God's greatest gift -- the gift of life itself. Now, if you take the traditional Protestant position that all your sins must be forgiven to avoid Hell, and that you must request forgiveness to receive it, then suicides do go to Hell, because they commit a sin and then die before they could ask forgiveness. (Well, ignoring cases like someone who jumps off a bridge, thinks better of it, and asks forgiveness on the way down.) However, we must ultimately remember that God is a loving God. I don't think God would condemn a person who did not have control over their own actions due to mental illness. I also don't think God would condemn the poor people who chose to jump out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 rather than burn to death.

:::::However, this leads to another question: what about actions that aren't strictly speaking, suicide, but still self-destructive? For instance, the case of someone who "drank himself to death". (The question of whether or not drinking alcohol is a sin in and of itself is an entire new topic....) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 07:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::Couldn't you claim that soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others committed suicide? God would have to be very strange to condemn them for that show of love. --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I would simply like to point out the Samauri of Japan, who would rather commit suicide than live with any sort of cultural dishonor. [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 12:55, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Mind

2009-02-18T16:16:38Z

EelisA: typo, fixed

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]', but it is sometimes used to refer to the activities of such.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers are capable of introspecting concepts. Titchner offered no means by which a "well trained" observer could be recognised.

Like his predecessor, Wundt, Titchner listed the elements he believed made the mind function, a total of 44,000 [[sense|sensational]] elements. He further broke these elements into four categories
#Quality - What seperates one sensation from another
#Intensity - How strong the sensation is
#Duration - How long a sensation lasts for
#Clearness - How detailed the sensation is

==Functionalism==
Unlike Structuralism, Functionalism focused more heavily on what the mind does, and became the dominant model of its time. Functionalism focused on how and what caused the mind to function, and this movement is most closely attributed to John Dewey and James Rowland Angell. It was William James, however, who served as the person who began the functionalist movement. His writings and works, for the most part, stated that an individual created the notion of elements by attempting to stop the mind's ongoing activity. He stated, furthermore, that it was possible for two people to experience the same event in a different way, owing to the different functions of different minds.

==The Gestalt Movement==
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" best summarises the Gestalt movement. This branch refered to Structuralism and Functionalism as "brick and mortar psychology", and saw the "whole" experience of the mind as a Gestalt. The primary characteristic of the Gestalt is the importancs of the consciousness, and the belief that wholes cannot be reduced to a listing with a description of the parts. The Gestalt movement proposed [[Principles of Perception]], which focus on how we tend to group objects.
#Proximity - Similar objects group
#Similarity - Similar looking objects group, even despite proximity
#Pragnanz - The idea that we naturally attempt to make a "perfect shape"
#Closure - Our tendancy to complete incomplete shapes.

This particular theory was proposed by German Cognitive Scientists [[Max Wertheimer]], [[Kurt Koffa]], and [[Wolfgang Kohler]]
==Psychoanalysis==
Perhaps the most well known branch, Psychoanalysis was founded by [[Sigmund Freud]] and focuses on the three divisions of the mind, the [[Ego]], the [[Superego]], and the [[Id]]. Freud proposed that the Id, being completly unconscious, was in control of our wants and desires, and demanded immediate satisfaction of its wants. The Superego was responsible for our ethical sense, seeking to supress the Id, and the Ego balanced the needs of the Id and Superego. The Ego operates on what Freud termed the "reality principle", operating in a rational and pragmatic fashion.
==Behaviorism==
The weaknesses in Frued's theory were the strengths that made up Behaviorism. Instead of attempting to describe the complexity of the mind, the Behaviorist branch focused on behavior. In the view of Behaviorists, the internal workins of the ind are too complex to be measured in an objective and scientific fashion, and that behaviors, being observable, are the best way to describe the mind. Humans, for the sake of study, were de facte lumped into the same category as animals, making behaviorism a more general science.

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mystery:Why Are Black Americans Still Poor?

2008-12-18T02:10:55Z

EelisA: /* Possible Reasons for Remaining Poverty */ A reason I can think of.

Black Americans are much poorer than White Americans, despite the fact that much racial discrimination officially became illegal over 40 years ago. Conversely, Asian Americans, who often started from equally humble backgrounds, are comparatively wealthy. This mystery is compounded by the lack of Christian values of many Asian Americans' upbringings. So why are Black Americans still poor?

==Are Black Americans Really Poor?==
Compared to White Americans, yes. However, Black Americans are much wealthier than many citizens of the more impoverished countries. <ref>http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html</ref> This is because of American [[conservative values]].<ref>See Also [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]] for a discussion of Black Americans holding conservative values.</ref>

== Possible Reasons for Remaining Poverty ==

=== [[Affirmative Action]] ===

Affirmative action trains people to think they are not good enough to earn things on their own.

=== Abortion ===

Not only is [[abortion]] an expensive form of birth control (compared to [[abstinence]]), but it also leads people to devalue human life. Why bother to work for success if your life isn't worth anything anyway?

=== Black Separatism ===

Groups like the [[Nation of Islam]] and leaders like [[Jeremiah Wright]], despite holding some conservative values, encourage the liberal value of race-consciousness. They sometimes encourage separate institutions for Black Americans. Integration, especially with richer groups, increases the wealth of the integrated group.

=== Education ===

The fact that liberals are beholden to teachers unions makes it impossible for schools to get rid of substandard teachers. An exceptional teacher in an under-served area may have the opportunity to transfer from that area into a better one, while a poor teacher is able to muddle through year after year without doing their students any good. This slavish dedication to corrupt union hiring policies clearly has a negative effect on urban Black populations which limits their later earnings. This is one reason why voucher programs have been incredibly popular in Washington DC, a city with a major Black population.

==Cultural expectations==

Due to the pre-concieved notion of what is "cool" poor blacks become interested in gang activity. This is contributed to due to the potential for battered familys (marital violence is higher in the lower income brackets), and as such, the gang becomes a "second family" to the individual. Furthermore, it is "easier" for one to simply take the easy way, over the one that requires work.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Are Black Americans Still Poor?

2008-12-18T02:08:44Z

EelisA: /* Possible Reasons for Remaining Poverty */ Removed crime because of the "War on Drugs", which is much harsher to poor people. I hope you don't mind.

Mystery:Why Are Black Americans Still Poor?

2008-12-18T02:07:21Z

EelisA: Despite the fact I disagree with this, it could use some better grammar.

Black Americans are much poorer than White Americans, despite the fact that much racial discrimination officially became illegal over 40 years ago. Conversely, Asian Americans, who often started from equally humble backgrounds, are comparatively wealthy. This mystery is compounded by the lack of Christian values of many Asian Americans' upbringings. So why are Black Americans still poor?

==Are Black Americans Really Poor?==
Compared to White Americans, yes. However, Black Americans are much wealthier than many citizens of the more impoverished countries. <ref>http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html</ref> This is because of American [[conservative values]].<ref>See Also [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]] for a discussion of Black Americans holding conservative values.</ref>

== Possible Reasons for Remaining Poverty ==

=== [[Affirmative Action]] ===

Affirmative action trains people to think they are not good enough to earn things on their own.

=== Abortion ===

Not only is [[abortion]] an expensive form of birth control (especially compared to [[abstinence]]), but it also leads people to devalue human life. Why bother to work for success if your life isn't worth anything anyway?

=== Crime ===

Liberal courts have been soft on crime. Prison thus fails to act as a deterrent to those tempted to crime and fails to keep determined criminals off the street. Instead, they are released on technicalities, only to prey on Black Americans.

=== Black Separatism ===

Groups like the [[Nation of Islam]] and leaders like [[Jeremiah Wright]], despite holding some conservative values, encourage the liberal value of race-consciousness. They sometimes encourage separate institutions for Black Americans. Integration, especially with richer groups, increases the wealth of the integrated group.

=== Education ===

The fact that liberals are beholden to teachers unions makes it impossible for schools to get rid of substandard teachers. An exceptional teacher in an under-served area may have the opportunity to transfer from that area into a better one, while a poor teacher is able to muddle through year after year without doing their students any good. This slavish dedication to corrupt union hiring policies clearly has a negative effect on urban Black populations which limits their later earnings. This is one reason why voucher programs have been incredibly popular in Washington DC, a city with a major Black population.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Card game

2008-12-16T05:24:10Z

EelisA: Expanded a bit

A '''card game''' is a recreational activity that utilises a deck (usually a standard 52- card deck) following an organized set of rules to make a game. A standard deck consists of an Ace, the numbers 2-10, a Jack, a Queen, and a King. A deck usually has four "suites"; hearts, diamonds, clubs, and spades. There are exceptions, such as [[Uno]]

A large amount of card games involve [[gambling]], although real money is not always used, occasionally being represented with chips that designate a value.

[[Category:Games]]

Talk:Main Page/archive68

2008-12-16T05:06:30Z

EelisA: Archived.

==Evil Concealed By Money?==
-
- One of the news articles on the mainpage declear: " It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends " Yes, it's called taxes, goverment taxes it's citicens and uses that money for common good, roads, schooling, medical care, social welfare and so on... Is it Conservapedias official view that taxes are evil? and if people in here could decide there would be no taxes? Do you think that society could really survive without taxes by letting people just give money to good causes as they see fit? Personally i think that just as utopistic as communism was. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 14:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- *Can you not see the difference between taxation to provide for the common good (like schools, roads, bridges) and ''income redistribution'' by force, wherein the government decides how much is enough income, and takes what it decides is "excessive" and puts it into a pool of like money and "gives" this confiscated money to others? And I would remind you that a news item by virtue of being on CP's front page, doesn't necessarily make it Conservapedia's view. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::I'm confused; what are you arguing against? What government puts excessive income into a pool? That suggests a 100% taxation level above a certain point. All progressive taxation, whether for public good or otherwise, is a form of redistribution. Moreover, many argue that redistribution ''is'' for the common good, as it (supposedly) alleviates costs related to crime and poor education (underutilisation of workforce). [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:33, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- ::: No, it isn't all redistribution. Taxes to pay for defence, for example, go to paying the people doing the defending (soldiers, equipment suppliers, etc.), regardless of their existing wealth. Taxes that are levied ''for the purpose of'' redistribution are another thing entirely. ~~
-
- ::*That is quite typical of fuzzy Euro-speak. A "pool" is merely illustrative. "Some" might argue redistribution is for the common good. Those doing so would be wrong, [[deceit]]ful liberals or socialists. Your linguistic maneuver's are but a fraud, like your socialist opinions. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:48, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::: TK, knock off the cultural/national stereotyping and other ''ad hominem'' arguments and simply address the issues. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- ::::::Philip, sorry, but this is a discussion page. If someone's free and candid comments distrurb you, then don't read them. Anything liberals dislike or disagree with is "ad hominem" and stereotyping, I have found. It gets tiresome, you projecting your world-view, wikipedia type sensibilities here. Block me, as I know you are itching to do, if that is what this, yet another threat from you is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:25, 21 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::: I'm actually a supporter of graduated tax brackets, but not really because of income redistribution. I feel that the more wealthy you are, the more you make, the greater stake you have in the security of the nation, the economy, and the government. But that's pure opinion. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::*Graduated taxation for necessary public services, ''and the idea of letting the government decide what portion of your income is "excessive"'' are two different things. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- :::: What linguistic maneuvers? What socialist opinions? I merely ask you to clarify what opinions you're arguing against, and you resort to ad hominem attacks? You might have a bit of an anger problem there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :Can i see the difrence between common good and income redistribution? No i can't. I think it's in everyones best intrest that we take care of our poor and sick. There is offcourse limit to how much we can take from the rich and share to the poor, and that can be debated, but i do think we should provide them with enough income in hard times to survive without commiting crimes etc. Personally i think we could never trust something as important as basic needs of people just to charity. And i definetly don't see how raising money thro taxes for this purpose would be somehow " employing evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person " and at same time to use taxes to provide roads, schools and healthcare would be suddenly ok [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:41, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::Well, there you go....all boiled down neatly as to the danger of liberal policies! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:13, 20 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :: I think we should never trust something as important as basic needs of people to government! When governments get involved, typically wastage goes up (more of the taxpayer money is spent on wages, office-refits, red tape, etc. than otherwise) and the welfare payments become a ''right'' that recipients can ''demand''. This leads to a welfare mentality, where some would rather bludge than work, because they know that the government will support them. Charities, on the other hand, will be distributing money as a gift, not a right.
- :: Also, committing crimes has far more to do with morals than lack of income.
- :: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 20 November 2008 (EST)
- :::So the fact that crime rates mirror income levels very closely means that the more money you have the more moral you tend to be? How Calvinist of you. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:20, 21 November 2008 (EST)
-
-
-
- ==The God Delusion Suicide==
-
- What a horrible story on the main page. Richard Dawkins must be somewhere laughing that he managed to lead at least one young soul from Christ to an eternity in hell. Is there anyway he can be charged with murder or a similar crime? This should be a Conservapeda project to bring Richard Dawkins to justice.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 19:38, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- :Quite possibly, ''if he was American''. Counselling suicide is a crime in most (all?) jurisdictions, and the God Delusion does just that. However, as a Brit., he's largely untouchable. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:41, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- ::What about the personal responsibility of the young man at the center of this? I mean it is a horrible tragedy but in the end he is responsible for his own actions and to blame this entirely on one book seems to be a very strange idea to me. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 19:47, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- :::Yes, blame the victim in typical liberal fashion. His values were corrupted by an atheistic school. He was deceived. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:54, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- ::::My heart goes out to that kid's family. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:54, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- :::::My heart also goes out to his family since they are just as much the victim here if not more so then the kid as they will have to live with the pain of his loss. But I do not see how my idea of personal responsibility is in anyway "typical liberal fashion" since most fellow libertarians I have meet as well as most conservatives feel that it is the growing liberal welfare state and the resultant loss of people accepting responsibility for their actions that are causing most of the problems this country currently faces. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 21:56, 21 November 2008 (EST)
- :::::: a troubled young person, described by himself and his father as a Republican, christian, conservative, participating in debates since age 5 , and a recent Active duty member of the US air force, apparently thinking of suicide for a while (photobucket images), who used a blog name of JKRapture (suggests to me a bit of a preoccupation with the end ) kills himself after reading a not terribly good book suggested by a Community College professor. I dont remember anything in the book that actively recommends suicide - its been a while since I read it though. Does anyone have a quote ? His death is a person tradgedy for his friends and parents. It seems doubtful that the full story will ever be known. The police case is likely closed by now. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 00:20, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- :::::::Just having read the article, I agree this is tragic, but it doesn't seem like it was the atheist views in ''The God Delusion'' that drove him to sucide. He agreed with ''TGD'', it opened his eyes! From what I can tell, it was the realisation that everything he believed was founded on such shaky principles. That kind of revelation can be devestating, but surely the problem was with the absolute certainty the boy had in his faith. There was no room for doubt, for criticism, for any kind of free thought in his head, and so when his faith went.... it took everything with it. "A domination of faith wrecks lives" is the lesson we should take from this tragic story. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 13:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- ::::::::Karl, your whole post is absurd and reflects liberal and atheistic views we refute on this site. The lesson you ''should'' have learned is that faith ''enhances'' life and atheism is the path to hell. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:33, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- :::::::::Wow, watching you guys exploit this tragedy to score cheap ideological points is truly sickening. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 23:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::::::::I suppose Karl and Transfan should read the latest main page entry on Dawkins. We can't be sure if Hitler was wrong? It is time for conservatives to retake the academy. Evil men like Dawkins are corrupting the minds of students, and in the long run, all of western civilization. Conservatives should be hired as professors. In time, perhaps we can open the minds of the young to conservative principles and reverse the damage that Dawkins and his ilk have done.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 11:40, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- :::::::::::What's this nonsense about it being a "liberal thing" to blame the victim? I was under the impression it was a liberal thing to blame the crime upon society and/or outside influences, versus the conservative idea of personal responsibility. It is not Dawkins' fault that this boy killed himself, any more that its the fault of his parents for failing to prevent it. --[[User:Lester|Lester]] 18:25, 1 December 2008 (EST)
- ''“I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’”''
-
- ''At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else?''
-
- ''I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”''
-
- ''“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”''
-
- Full representation of Dawkins' words.--[[User:JKoliner|JKoliner]] 20:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Dems? Repubs? ==
-
- This is a question for the sysops, and is for my own peace of mind.
- Are their any Republicans out there that you guys (who are running Conservapedia) don't like? Or Democrats you do like?
-
- I'm trying to maintain faith in this site, and I need to know that you guys don't just blindly follow whoever has the same values as you.
-
- If you could toss me some examples that would be fantastic. --[[User:Totallytravis|Totallytravis]] 20:21, 21 November 2008 (EST)
-
-
- *Anyone that is serious, reading this wiki, would see dozens of examples of Republicans who conservatives are not enamored of. Even your question is provocative, as it seems to say Democrats do not blindly follow. If you are a Christian, your faith wouldn't be so easily shaken, that I do know. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:14, 21 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Washington Post Admits Bias ==
-
- I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, so apologies if it has:
- [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403057.html Washington Post admits it has a liberal bias]
- [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Is the news section a news ticker or a blog? ==
-
- It reads like a blog, with largely opinion and interpretation and very little to offer in the way of news. Thoughts? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- :It looks like a blog. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- ::Quite the contrary, the news section presents stories the [[liberal media]] tries to cover up or outright ignores. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:15, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- :::No, that's not what I see. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- : Gentlemen , how about a specific example ? easier to debate than generalities. For my education who approves these to appear on the main page ? that should be the filter point [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:54, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- ::The Dawkins thing isn't news, months ago maybe, but I think its part of his page on here. Same thing with analysis stories like "where did the Regan votes go in 2008?" they aren't events coming to light now, they are just analysis that has recently been done by contributors. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:48, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- ::: I can see that reasoning , I would view though that news on an encyclopedia site , should perhaps be more topical than current if you follow. It is perhaps more educational to raise topics that induce thoughtful research than be extremely current. Perhaps the page could have a Breaking News section at the top , then items of interest maybe not quite as current. The suicide was in early october but I dont think it broke on the blogs until late october/early november so its not that old. Just my opinion though [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
-
- *''Conserv''apedia is a Conservative-friendly encyclopedia. Since it is beyond doubt the [[MSM]] is overwhelmingly full of [[liberal deceit]] surely you liberals will reflect and understand our right to point out those news items of interest to the vast majority of our readers and editors! I see comments above holding CP to some standard set by another well-known online encyclopedia, and would like to point out that what is done there is by no means the ''standard of the world'' by virtue of them doing or not doing something, and it is not logical to make the comparison. We set our own standards, and blaze new trails here. We reject the liberal, revisionist, POV. It is a public service to present items never mentioned in the [[Mainstream Media]] and give the sources for our users to follow-up on. IMO, the introduction of the news section, and its expansion and refinement under the watch of [[user:DeanS|DeanS]], ranks among the foremost improvements to this encyclopedia. Is there no end to the complaints [[liberals]] will trot out to make an issue of, just to stir the pot? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:17, 22 November 2008 (EST)
- :Terry, Thank you for this great post and your support. I don't expect liberals to like the news section and that's fine with me. In fact, if these liberals are ''upset'' with the news section, that's even better, because us conservatives are even'' more'' upset with what liberals are doing to our country. We will continue to post negative articles about liberals and positive articles about conservatives. We will post negative articles about public schools and positive articles about homeschooling. We will post negative articles about abortion and homosexuality and positive articles about pro-life issues and ex-homosexuals. In summary, we will continue to post news and issues of interest to conservatives.
- :No, there is no end to the complaints of liberals to the news section or Conservapedia in general. It's part of their nature and something Alinsky taught them to do. I used to be a liberal (a long time ago when I was a student), but when I got a job and started seeing capitalism in action, I realized that liberals are wrong and conservatives are right. I even edited on Wikipedia a while, until they started censoring my contributions. I found a home on Conservapedia, and never looked back. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 05:23, 23 November 2008 (EST)
-
- It's not a blog. Dean runs our news column because of all the sysops and other contributors, he's simply the best at it. I '''can''' write a new capsule, and I sometimes do. But Dean has the discipline to keep at every day. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)
- :Thanks Ed. ''Some'' of us here at Conservapedia appreciate the news section because it highlights what's good about conservatives and what's wrong with liberals. These news articles are meant to be thought provoking, both from the conservative and liberal perspective. We wikilink the news to Conservapedia's articles to add knowledge from our encyclopedia. We also incorporate these news articles into our Conservapedia articles for more conservative insight. We have input from several members of the news project who have been contributing news suggestions and completed wanted pages. The end result is very beneficial to Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:27, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Obama and Church ==
-
- I kind of find it a bit hypocritical that you have a link to an article mentioning Obama not attending church regularly while in said article it mentions the current president, a Republican, George W. Bush having not regularly attended church while in Washinton. -[[User:Rcollins]] 13:27, 23 November 2008 (EST)
-
- *So you are complaining that both received equal treatment? That lacks logic. The truth will set you free, Rcollins! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:48, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- ::No i am saying the attack on Obama lacks logic considering Bush has not regularly attended church so why does it matter -[[User:Rcollins]] 14:44, 23 November 2008 (PST)
- :::No, it is perfectly logical. No one questions Bush's active faith, and goodness knows it's extremely difficult for a ''sitting president'' to attend given the extraordinary demands of his job and the security involved. Obama's faith, however, is questionable to the point of rejection, and thus his lack of attendance is of keen importance. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- ::::Obviously, fallaciously, [[liberals]] even though mostly lacking faith, do question Bush's faith. ''However this was just another lame attempt to create a problem where there is none.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:32, 23 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::Today's posted news item renders disproves the comment that started this thread, noting [[Obama]]'s "departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors" in his failure to attend church after the election.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 24 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::::That's an interesting tidbit. And yet the liberals keep protesting the religious information in the Obama article. I wonder if ''any'' amount of evidence can convince the lot of them. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 19:44, 24 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::::[[Liberals]] get mad when their [[deceit]] does not fool [[conservative]]s. What fun is [[deceit]] when it doesn't fool the targets of the deceit???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::::: [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%207:3&version=9 Mathew 7:3] --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 09:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::::::: [[Liberals]] just love to misapply selected passages of the Bible, while ignoring or rejecting others that prohibit liberal activities or beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::::::: Yeah, like the Adultress Story. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- I think the contents of this topic are a textbook example of liberal deceit, and should be added to that page as an example (by someone who's better at this than I). [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 15:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :I'm curious about Obama's religion, but I guess we'll never know. Anyway, he seems to be more of a politician than a religious man. And he got elected president during his first senate term. Is there a precedent for that?
-
- :I wonder who's pulling his strings. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:40, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Twilight==
- You all realize this is a vampire movie, not some moralistic abstinence movie, right? {{unsigned|Robertlilly}}
-
- :Especially since in the book series the main female character doesn't want to wait for marriage. But whatever, I thought hollywood culture promoted 'liberal' values. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:38, 24 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :Don't the books consist of the two main characters becoming intimate and inexplicably sparkling and occasionally talking about how awesome they are? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- No. I don't think they are pro-abstinence. The only reason they don't become intimate is because Edward would kill her. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 15:52, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- In terms of her immortal soul, isn't that the same thing?[[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == New Here ==
-
- Are there specific areas that need work? I am new to this site and am wondering what topics are high-interest or high-priority that I could help with? Thanks! [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 14:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :The beauty of the site is that you can pick whatever interests you. We have a preference for substance over talk. Insightful analysis of history or other academic topics is particularly appreciated! Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::Thank you, and if there is a particular project that needs an editor assigned to it, feel free to ask. Thanks! [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 14:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::I recommend you join the [[Wikiproject:News|news project]], and we can use your help creating [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted pages]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :Welcome to the Wiki. You seem like the sort who'll do well here. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:25, 25 November 2008 (EST)
- ::I hope you meant that earnestly, but by your edits, I suspect otherwise. Respectfully, [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 15:35, 25 November 2008 (EST)
- :::Eh? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:36, 25 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Captcha ==
-
- Please, change the captcha for New User Account creation. It took me 8 tries! --[[User:Saatana|Saatana]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- if you have trouble with it, try sitting back from the screen and try to read the two words rather than focus on the letters. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- :Someone complained about Captcha and it was reverted. It says much, doesn't it? Why don't you revert Saatana's contribution too, he too is a blocked filthy liberal. --[[User:PoorMoon|PoorMoon]] 09:12, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Robert Gates staying at the Pentagon ==
-
- How do people feel about this? I've heard a number of opinions from the left side, but not that many from the right side.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 07:58, 26 November 2008 (EST)
- :(Sees updated news article) OK. Now how did I not see that coming?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Civics Quiz ==
-
- I thought this was pretty interesting. A group of U.S. elected officials recently took this quiz about some basic U.S. history, government, and economics questions, and scored an average of 44%. I got 90.91 % (30/33). Apparently, liberals scored 49% average while conservatives scored 48%. In terms of party affiliation it was reversed, however, as Republicans scored 52% while Democrats scored 45%.
-
- http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
-
- '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 21:16, 26 November 2008 (EST)
-
- I'm British and got 30/33. I didn't know who Susan B Anthony was or the Anti-Federalists, which is a cultural mistake really. Those democrats and republicans sure need to wise up on their own country. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- Got lucky: 33/33. I have criticisms of several questions. Were there multiple letters (plural) by Jefferson mentioning a "wall of separation of church and state"? I though it was only one letter to the Danbury Baptists. The question about international trade has a political bias in favor of hurtful "[[free trade]]"; the question about reducing taxes and increasing spending is biased in favor of liberal [[Keynesian]] economics. The question about Socrates and Aquinas has nothing to do with American civics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:48, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :32/33, didn't know Jefferson's letters. How can anyone get 50%? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :30/33 --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:59, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::30/33 - though it would have been a lot lower had I not been a member here! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:05, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- 30/33 for me. It has been a year or so since I took AP USII and 2 years since AP USI. With European history in my mind, I have not focused on US history for a while! Though I do think a few of those questions were quite biased and could be argued. Happy Thanksgiving!--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- ::31/33 - I endorse Bugler's comment! [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- Superb scores, everyone! Knowledge creates opportunity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- 32/33 - dang Gettysburg Address. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:07, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Myths Conservatives believe about Liberals ==
-
- [http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008114825/talking-turkey-ten-myths-conservative-believe-about-progressives Talking Turkey: Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives]
-
- Please read this.
-
- [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- : What a bunch of strawmen arguments. No mention of how liberals censor classroom prayer; in fact, your site does not mention "prayer" or "censor" at all. No mention of taxpayer-funded abortion; in fact, no mention of abortion at all in your site. No mention of higher taxes until way down the list, and then it falsely pretends that the impact of the higher taxes won't hurt all Americans.
-
- : Instead, in characteristic fashion, the liberal rant greats the reader with an obscene analogy and race-baiting in the same sentence. If your reference can't express its ideas in a clean way -- and often liberals can't -- then put it in your own words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- ::See [[User_talk:RodWeathers#Excuse Me?]] for discussion of its bias and removal. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 20:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::Hold up Schlafly... The linked piece is a list of claimed ''myths Conservatives believe about Progressives''... and you're complaining that censorship, prayer, and taxpayer-funded abortion aren't mentioned in the article, ''which lists myths''. So what you're saying is, if ''you'' were writing a list of myths Conservatives believe about Liberals, you would have included censorship of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded abortion, and higher taxes hurting all Americans? So you're saying that those things are all myths, right? Because I was seriously under the impression that before today, you thought they ''weren't'' myths. [[User:DRussthegreat|DRussthegreat]] 08:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::: Nice try, Russ "the great" (sounds like another self-centered liberal, like Obama). In fact, there are ''no'' myths that conservatives believe about liberals. The article's list is of strawmen that duck and avoid the real problems with liberals: they censor prayer, they force taxpayer-funded abortion (which hurts the women misled to have them), they lead our youth down an ideological road of despair, and they hurt everyone by raising taxes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::Hey, if I'm going to create an obvious throwaway sockpuppet account, I can at least point it out with an obvious throwaway sockpuppet name, right? But anyway, you're missing my point. This is a list of supposed (in the view of the article's author) myths, right? And you're complaining that they don't mention these things in their article. Surely if they ''were'' mentioned in their article, then they would be suggesting they were myths, and ''then'' you would have something to complain about? [[User:DRussthegreat|DRussthegreat]] 11:18, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Phony internet account news item==
- What you failed to mention here is that her harrassment led to the victim killing herself. it was carried out maliciously against a personal target. you couldn't have missed that reading the article. why did you leave it out?
-
- : I doubt it mattered legally. At one point I think it was unclear if the jury would even be told that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == "New" "Left" or "New Left"? ==
-
- I noticed that in the news section, the links on "shadow world" point to two articles, [[new]] and [[left]]. Shouldn't that be [[new left]]? Who should I contact about this?--[[User:JackH|JackH]] 18:19, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :If you write the article on the "[[new left]]", I will change the wikilink. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:28, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- ::How about linking to the article on liberals?? [[User:Camus|Camus]] 13:27, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Professions==
-
- I have ''always'' thought of professions as means to ends - not as ends in themselves. What is the essential philosophic difference between me and y'all who think professions are ends in themselves? For me, it seems the positive effects of what one does (even if its just providing for oneself) are far more important than the job itself. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :The relationship of "means" and "ends" was not clear from the headline. For example, what does ''ars gratia artis'' ("art for its own sake") mean? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:22, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == A quick point ==
-
- I saw your article on the arrest of Conservative MP Green, and thought I should point something out; it's not really because Labour are particularly malicious and totalitarian, it's because they're heavily incompetent and tired of being backed into corners (but I still hate them, and will be voting Conservative in the next election). Also, over in America, our (British) conservative party would be closer to the Democrats than Republicans (just though I would point it out as a matter of interest). [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:01, 29 November 2008 (EST)
- :NeilEG, open your eyes to the real nature of Labour: lies, hypocrisy, arrogance, power mania, an attempt to use any method - bribery, intimidation, slander - to get their own way. Have you forgotten their treatment of Dr Kelly? Have you forgotten Blair's acceptance of bribes from Bernie Ecclestone, then blatantly lying about it with his "I'm a pretty straight kind of guy" line? Have you forgotten how they sold 'honours' to the highest bidder, then planted a party stooge in charge of the so-called 'independent' inquiry into th matter? Hev you forgotted the roughing-up and subsequent arrest of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang for the crime of calling out 'nonsense' to the socialist Home Secretary? They have got away with it every step of the way, which is why these criminals now think they can get away with having opposition MPs arrested. When the Telegraph says it is like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, it is spot-on. Open your eyes, NeilEG, open your eyes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:40, 29 November 2008 (EST)
- ::Did I ever say I like Labour? No, I hate them. But I accept that the natural position of a politician is to lie; I don't like it, but I accept it. I read the Zimbabwe letter in the Telegraph today, and though I can see the similarity, I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. Do we have the death penalty? No (unlike America). And let us not forget that Dr Kelly was put under stress by an inquest into the illegality of the Iraq War - a war which George Bush and America started. And don't forget, over in Britain politicians don't have the celebrity status politicians in America have; we don't have massive rallies full of screaming and cheering zealots (apart from the BNP, but we don't like them); we don't have fights or deaththreats based on a persons political standing. We know what to expect from our politicians; they are the lesser of two evils, the other being anarchy. Cash for honours? I was screaming for blood, but alas, none came. It seems to me that American politicians are more to be feared than British ones. Sorry if it seems like I'm arguing with you; I assure you, nothing would please me more than the whole of the Labour cabinet being shown as the utter incompetents and scumbags they are. I just resent the idea that America's government is so much better; let us not forget Richard Nixon (and I consider the article here to show him in a flattering light), and everyone on here seems to already be mourning for America under Barack Obama. It's not just New Labour; it's politicians all around the world. They're not the paragons we wish they were. I don't really notice; I consider myself to be in a civilized and democratic country; and lucky to be in it, considering I could have been born in Russia, China, the Middle East etc. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 14:09, 29 November 2008 (EST)
-
- == Internal Linking within news posts ==
-
- I think some of the internal linking in recent news posts has been unnecessary. For example, in the recent "Conservative MP..." news post, there were internal links to pages like [[reveal]] and [[arrest]], and in the post on Citigroup links to [[bank]] and [[company]] - short pages which often just contain the definition of the word. I think our readers know what words like arrest mean. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:32, 29 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :This is true. I think there was a sysop who said that Conservapedia needs to limit its articles mainly to those subjects where liberal bias can be found on other sites, because CP does not yet have the resources to surpass Wikipedia. It's impossible to put a liberal spin on the definition of "bank," so why have it? I would go one step further and say that the whole dictionary category should be deleted, but I know a lot of work went into it, and I suppose there might be some words that have different meanings to conservatives. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 17:02, 30 November 2008 (EST) I have since noticed that definition articles, such as [[company]], are not necessarily in the dictionary category.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 17:07, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::*JArneal, quotations given from another, without knowledge of the person who recited them, ''and the accurate context'', are as dry, parched of meaning, as the sands of the Gobi. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :: Liberal bias does crop up in unexpected places, and our [[Bias in Wikipedia]] entry demonstrates that. Can there be a bias in defining "bank"? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. But even if you disagree, it is impossible to clearly define limits on the extent of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::: ''"... I think there was a sysop who said that Conservapedia needs to limit its articles mainly to those subjects where liberal bias can be found on other sites, because CP does not yet have the resources to surpass Wikipedia..."'' I am very surprised to hear this. I was under the impression that articles on all subjects were allowed and welcomed. I have been editing here for almost 2 years, and during that time we have been encouraged to create pages from the "wanted pages" list which includes all types of topics. My own contributions include articles on agriculture and geography. Are pages supposed to be limited to certain subjects? If so, I should stop writing articles that do not conform to the desired topics. Thanks, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:40, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::: Taj, you're absolutely correct. All your entries are most welcome. The very purpose and value of a wiki is to be able to write and learn about anything and everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:51, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::: Thank you for clarifying, that's a relief to hear! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:01, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- I wasn't really criticising what kind of articles are being created. And that debate has already been had on this page (see "27.focus?").
- What I was talking about was the fact that sometimes internal linking to these articles is unnecessary, particularly when the article is simply a definition of the term. For example, take a post on the main page right now: "Phyllis Schlafly: Time to Follow Reagan's Example." Obviously "Phyllis Schlafly" and "Reagan" should have internal links. "Time" on the other hand shouldn't. Even if the "Time" page were more than a simple definition, it would be hard to see how a complex, scientific explanation of "Time" would help somebody gain a proper understanding of the news post. "Example" could be internal linked, but it would be much better if it linked to an article specifically assessing Reagan's presidency and its impact on the United States (so along with the link to the Reagan page, the news post would sorta say "This is who Reagan was, and this was the example he set" rather than "this is who Reagan was, and this is what an example is" as it reads right now.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 19:13, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- : Sorry, everyone. didn't mean to make this argument something it's not, but I'm still pretty sure that a sysop said the articles need more focus... if that sysop is reading this, could you say something? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Obama caliphate? ==
-
- <blockquote>
- "[[Conservative Party]] [[MP]] and Shadow Minister [[Damian Green]] embarrassed [[Britain]]'s [[Socialist]] [[government]] by [[reveal]]ing its [[lie]]s and blunders over [[immigration]] [[policy]] once too often - so they had him [[arrest]]ed and held incommunicado for nine hours. So much for the [[respect]] of [[liberal]]s and [[leftist]]s for [[freedom]] and [[democracy]]. [[United States of America|Americans]] can look forward to this kind of thing as the [[Obama]] caliphate takes hold. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/3532746/Damian-Green-arrest-like-Mugabes-Zimbabwe.html]"
- </blockquote>
-
- Goodness! Why would anyone be "touchy" over that? It has to be a readily known fact for most people that liberals are only for free speech when it agrees with them......no? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:16, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :Is that so? I suppose I'm not "most people", and neither are any of my friends and family. But that Damian Green is not the greatest of people.--[[User:JackH|JackH]] 09:15, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::Do we need more separation between hard news reporting and value-drive editorializing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::You mean at Conservapedia, Ed?[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- Just to let you know that "liberals and leftists" in Britain are equally embarrassed about the behaviour of the New Labour government (which is definitely not Socialist, by the way). The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, (the most senior member of the government after the P.M.) pretty much disowned the Home Secretary's (in)actions in radio and TV interviews over the weekend. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 11:51, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Self-centered Obama ==
-
- Maybe he's busy with the transition? We ''are'' in the midst of a financial crisis. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 19:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :Wow! If you think that's the reason, you're really naive about political decisions. Obama is only an hour's flight away from Georgia, and has a full office on the plane. And you can bet the Georgia election is on the mind of every Democrat right now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::I'd like to think that the man responsible for dealing with the unprecedented challenges facing the entire nation is using each precious day between now and the inauguration to focus on building a team and addressing those challenges. To take time away from that for the sake of a single Senate seat would show a poor choice of priorities. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :::That is the beauty of a blog like this. If Obama spent time in Georgia, Andy can run a news article about Obama trying to sway voters in Georgia rather than prepare to run the country! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 21:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::Another beauty of a place like this, evidently, is that it has allowed the participation of a self-confessed liberal atheist like yourself, and even offered you praise for when you helped it, right "Boomcoach"? So here you stand, proclaiming it a "blog" and denigrating and trivializing the valuable academic contributions of hundreds of other editors in your obviously [[liberal]] smugness. Looking over your so-called "contributions" here at CP is to have a sense of wonder as to just why you have been allowed to stay, given your confessed reason for doing so is laugh at us, and get some smug sense of superiority, some "entertainment value" at doing so. Count yourself lucky indeed that I missed the opportunity to remove you when I could have, and can no longer do so. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:55, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::: Well put, TK. "Boomcoach" may be easily amused but he is clueless about what the role of a president even is. Obama doesn't "run the country" any more than a senator or congressmen does, and they don't run the country either. Moreover, congressmen are not term-limited the way a president is. Liberals are still trying to exaggerate Obama's power, when what they should be doing is reading the Constitution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:44, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- This is a job for our Resident Intellectual/Professor, Ed Poor. Given that it is most likely past his bed-time in NYC, I will take a stab at it. Presidents, no matter who, no matter what party, are akin to corporate CEO's. Decisions are made in their name, with their broad approval. They rely upon their hand-picked experts to convert masses of jargon-speak down to a typical 1-2 page memo. They trust their advisors to do the right thing, give both sides accurately, and they make a decision. I doubt President-elect Obama will be making any decisions on his own about the economy, given the last trained Economist to inhabit the Oval Office was [[Ronald Reagan]].
-
- Dinsdale, the "challenges" Obama is facing (the entire country is facing) are mainly those of the [[Democrats]] own making, allowing Barney Fife and Christopher Dodd to bully the banks and hand-picking the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac boards and goading them into backing loans for hundreds of thousands of the poor, without a credit history or employment record to support giving them a home loan! There is nothing more politically important for the President-elect then to secure the Georgia seat for the socialist liberals, in order to ensure unimpeded legislation to buy more votes from the constituency groups of the Democratic Party.
- --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 30 November 2008 (EST)
-
- :A small point- George H. W. Bush actually majored in economics as well. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- *President George Bush took a Masters in Business Administration, not Economics, I believe. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::Yes, but his father George H.W. Bush graduated with a degree in economic from Yale in 1948. [[User:JDHolcombe|JDHolcombe]] 17:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::TK, did you mean Barney ''Frank''? Barney Fife was the deputy played by Don Knotts on the old Andy Griffith Show. Also, Congress does not appoint the board members of GSE's like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. There's also a lot more to the root causes of the current financial crisis than the greed and mismanagement that took place at Fannie and Freddie - the lack of regulation around the use of credit default swaps is a good example. I'll start to put together an some article content on these, since it's a broad and complex topic. Anyway, Obama's priority now has to be building the team of experts and advisers that you refer to, and to begin developing an agenda with them ''now'' for policies and proposed legislation that can be acted on immediately after January 20th. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:02, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::*Barney <s>Fife'</s>s Frank's Gay lover is an executive at one of them, right, DinsdaleP? The boards of both, you are wrong about Congress, or at least their influence. I think perhaps your liberal bent might be too strong for you to write an objective article on this matter. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- Can I say that, as a British person, I'd be astonished if Mr Obama spent his time campaigning in a by-election rather than putting together his Government. Please could CP readers stop whingeing about things that really don't matter or, as in this case, they ought to support. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 11:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- : Well, you're wrong about America, where "putting together" a government depends on electing allies in Congress. Obama's self-centered nature results in an underlying dislike and distrust by members of his ''own'' party, and that does not bode well for a functioning government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- :: Mr Schlafly, please could you state clearly here that, if Mr Obama ''had'' gone to campaign in Georgia, you wouldn't have whinged about him neglecting his duties in Washington? [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 11:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::: Obama has no "duties in Washington"! Look, if you won't open your mind at this point, don't continue to belabor it. Democrats campaign for each other all the time. So do Republicans. Obama campaigns for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- :::: "No duties in Washingon"!? We heard yesterday that Mr Obama had made the top foreign affairs appointments in his cabinet. Do you mean he's already made all his domestic appointments and all his junior foreign appointments? If so, the news hasn't reached Britain yet. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 11:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- There is always the possibility that Obama stayed away because, since this state went for McCain, he would actually be a liability for the candidate rather than an asset. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- : Still, it's interesting that Aschlafly hasn't taken the opportunity to make an unambiguous statement that, if Mr Obama ''had'' gone to Georgia, he wouldn't have criticised him for neglecting his job in Washington. It would be good to know that CP is a principled source of information, not one that just makes opportunistic attacks on political opponents whether or not they're doing the right thing. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Formatting/Attribution Suggestion==
- I've noticed that we've gotten out of the habit of stating where our news stories come from. Of course, we have the link, but I think it is even better to mention it up-front. For example: 
- '''American Thinker: ''Why Rush Limbaugh is a leading American intellectual''''' [9] 
- "The words 'intellect' and 'intellectual' deserve to be rescued from the myth-makers of the Left, which has decided in its amazing arrogance that it really owns those words." 
- I think this kind of approach is important, especially when we are linking to an opinion piece, which is the case for many of the main page news articles. It gives readers an idea of where the information or opinion is coming from, right up-front, plus showcases the variety of conservative sources from which we get our news. It's not a good fit for every item, but especially in the case of the opinion pieces, I think it should be considered. Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- :Good thoughts, Hsmom. What would be ideal is to have distinct main-page sections for "News" and "Op-Ed" - both are important, but they should be categorized appropriately. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::What a brilliant idea [[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]! I love it! That way we could showcase various conservative points of view, while making it clear that they are of an "op/ed" nature rather than a factual item. (For example, the WalMart Black Friday death story is factual, whereas the Rush Limbaugh = Intellectual essay is an op/ed.). --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:27, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- :::Liberal attempts to water down factual, conservative news items by dismissing them as "opinions" is not going to fly. Making the main page effectively say that some people think Limbaugh in one of Americans greatest intellectuals is an attempt to deny that his ''is'' indisputably one of our nation's greatest minds. There is no reason to take anything he says as any less factual than any article by the AP. In fact, just the opposite if true. [[User:AlbertW|AlbertW]] 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::::I don't see how it's watering anything down to label news as news, and opinion as opinion - that's just being accurate and truthful, which is what CP is supposed to stand for. If anything, defining a main-page section for conservative Op-Ed pieces makes CP a portal to conservative opinion pieces the leadership here would want people to be reading - how is that a bad thing? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- I like both ideas (Hsmom & Dinsdale), although I also understand Albert's objection. Let us discuss further how distinguish 'fact' from 'opinion' can help provide the public with trustworthy information.
-
- By the way, it is IMHO a conservative virtue to put one's own actions (or that of one's 'side') under rigorous ethical scrutiny. How can I repent, unless I realize what I did wrong and why it's wrong? I only want to make sure that we don't accuse anyone falsely. Let's not trick ourselves into "repenting" of good deeds.
-
- We need to do soul-searching, but we'd better reach the right conclusions as a result. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- :To address AlbertW's point, "news" would be the reporting of factual events in a who/what/where/when/why context, where the reporting can be fact-checked and corroborated. "Opinion-Editorial", or "Op-Ed" items, are essay-like pieces written to offer perspective, but which are not bound to journalistic standards for fact-checking and the like. Reporting Rush Limbaugh's I.Q. or industry awards would be news - these are factual events that can be verified by others. An essay on why he's a leading American intellectual is an Op-Ed piece, because "leading intellectual" is still a subjective measure regardless of how many people on CP agree with the essay. Op-Ed pieces are not strictly "news" stories, but they can offer valuable insights and should be given a prominent showcase on a site like CP. That doesn't make them "news" stories, though, which is why newspapers publish them in a clearly-defined Op-Ed section. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:25, 1 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Nuclear neighbor ==
-
- I am somewhat concerned that the news headline only targets Pakistan as having nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons so surely it would be more accurate if the headline read ''"...as a neutral broker between the nuclear armed countries of India and Pakistan."''--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 09:22, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Concerns ==
-
- I'm very well aware that I'm not what most would consider an active editor. If you look at my contributions, however, you will see that I have taken an interest in truly improving this project. The majority of my edits have been to the mainspace, whether it be copyedit or creating new articles. I joined here because I have conservative tendencies, and I wanted to be part of a project that conveys those values to others. I think all of us need to remember why we first came here and why we remain here.
-
- That's not to say that I agree with every topic here, and I ''highly'' doubt that any editor here does, even Andrew Schlafly. However, that does not give us permission to go on tirades about aspects of this project that we do not agree on. Recently, I have observed a growing hostility between many of the senior editors—be they administrators or users with blocking rights. I have not been here long, but it worries me that this hostility has continued to grow. I've seen the words "liberal," "parodist," and "phoney" thrown around so many times in the past month that I cannot stay silent anymore.
-
- We need to learn when to disengage in a debate. We're raised in a culture that views disengagement as a weakness; it's not. If we are not getting our point across, move on. If it is a "hot button" topic in which our senior editors disagree, I believe some sort of system needs to be put into place.
-
- I hope that all of our admins and senior users will read this message as a plea from a less-experienced, less-worthy user. I want to see this project flourish, not fall into a civil war that will rip it apart from the inside out.
-
- Thank you for the opportunity to express myself.
-
- --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- I think that all of us who have the interests of Conservapedia close at heart will endorse Jeffrey's wise words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::*The threshold for tolerating trolling and constant arguments and disputes, is very low these days. It will get lower. We have a mission, one of an American encyclopedia, reflecting Conservative and Christian friendly values. We will not be deterred or have our time wasted anymore. We always attempt to include all sides of an issue. We will continue to do so. I think the issues that ''some of us'' have been so publicly arguing over, what has been allowed to continue, will in a short amount of time be resolved. Thanks for your obvious caring, Jeffrey, and sticking with CP. Worry not! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- :::I concur with TK. We will resolve the issues that we have and we are making progress. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Merry Christmas==
- I thought [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27890640/]this was interesting. --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 08:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- : Great catch! It's posted now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ==Crystal Dixon==
- ''The bastion of free thought and tolerance, the modern American university, where someone can be fired for <s>excercising</s> exercising her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion''.
- Those interested in this story may like to read the original letter to the Toledo Free Press, which I have posted below. (And can someone fix that typo? Thanks.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:09, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- {{cquote|Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective <ref>[http://www.toledofreepress.com/2008/04/18/gay-rights-and-wrongs-another-perspective/]</ref>
-
- By Crystal Dixon
-
- I read with great interest Michael Miller’s April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs."
-
- I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.
-
- First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.
-
- As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free… I finally obeyed God."
-
- Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.
-
- The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.
-
- My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.
-
- Crystal Dixon lives in Maumee.}}
- :Thanks Hsmom. The typo is fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:08, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- == Cancelled embed in Iraq item... ==
-
- Heads-up. This news item from today:
- "More evidence that [[liberalism]] is a mental disorder: leftist, Bush-hating granny is suing the military for the cost of her plane ticket to [[Kuwait]] and other expenses, despite the fact that she bought and paid for everything ''after'' she was told her embeded position was cancelled.[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/12/05/lefty-granny-sues-army-over-embed-snafu]"--is incorrect. Both the newsbusters link and the original Oakland tribune article say she bought her plane ticket ''before'' the army cancelled her trip. Someone should fix this. 15:31, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- :Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:09, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
-
- ==Supreme Court/Obama Citizenship==
-
- Has anyone heard any details on this? I know they were supposed to consider whether to take up the case today, but details are (predictably) sparse. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:30, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- : Even I'm amazed how the liberal media, and even the infamous "scotusblog", have generally ignored this story.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::I have to admit--I thought that once it reached the Supreme Court, they'd HAVE to acknowledge it. Surely there must be some reliable information somewhere, though? I'd very much like to know what, if anything, was decided. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- :::Cert denied, today. They listed the writs they granted, and ''Donofrio v. Wells'' wasn't among it. [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/12/05/open-thread-on-donofrio-v-wells-cert-denied-55_-us-___-2008/ Politics Blog], [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/ Wall Street Journal Law Blog].-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 23:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- :::Also, the base of the case was the allegation that "natural born citizen" imports ''both'' parents(specifically, the father) being American: however, that's contrary to the long line of ''ius soli'' law, and contrary to traditional notions of the proximity between father and child, versus the proximity between mother and child. ''Nguyen v. U.S.'', 533 U.S. 53 (2001).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 23:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- ::::I added an entry for [[Donofrio v. Wells]], including the one notable source discussing the case's likely dismissal.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 23:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- *I am surprised, and not, especially given who referred it to the Court, Justice Thomas. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:26, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::You may well be right. But the conference was scheduled for today. They COULD postpone, so I added in the entry that it's only "possibly" dismissed, rather than likely (my personal feeling). I express no feeling as to whether that's good or bad. Oops, I responded to your old comment :). Do you think it was dismissed then? I'd give it an 80% chance but that's not certain enough to be encyclopedic yet.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 23:38, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-
- ::*Personally, I think they are loath to precipitate a Constitutional crisis. We don't have a mechanism for dealing with the contingency for something like this, a President-elect being disqualified by virtue of non-citizenship. The Constitution says the President-elect is sworn in @ Noon, 20 January. I suppose it would take yet another Court ruling to say the Vice-President-elect would be sworn in, and he would then appoint a VP, confirmed by the Senate, like Rockefeller was. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- :::I would hope that they wouldn't turn a blind eye to a genuine issue simply to avoid such a crisis; there are a number of Justices with a great reverence for the Constitution, and I find it hard to believe that they would be willing to compromise their principles that way. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:41, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- ::::I would like to see Obama challenged as well, but keep in mind that it's the constitutional order itself that demands that not every right has a remedy (principles of standing-that's what killed Berg's case), and not it's also the constitutional order that prevents SCOTUS from taking review of state law claims (that's what might have killed Donofrio's suit).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 11:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Deep ocean

2008-12-16T04:59:47Z

EelisA: Sorry, yet another fix.

'''Deep ocean''' also called deep-sea, refers to the nearly unreachable depths of the worlds oceans the exceed 1000 fathoms (1828 meters). Due to advances in technology, [[mankind]] is finally able to explore uncharted areas of the sea. Previous attempts at surpassing this depth were foiled due to the complete absence of light and the high water pressure achieved at this depth. Furthermore, the [[thermocline]] could damage equipment in the vehicle.

The deeper parts of the ocean are explored through the usage of [[submersibles]], a notable example of which is the voyage to find the sunken [[RMS Titanic#Titanic found|Titanic]], and the usage of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

[[Category:oceans]]
[[Category:technology]]

Deep ocean

2008-12-16T04:59:14Z

EelisA: and a final tweak.

'''Deep ocean''' also called deep-sea, refers to the nearly unreachable depths of the worlds oceans the exceed 1000 fathoms (1828 meters). Due to advances in technology, [[mankind]] is finally able to explore uncharted areas of the sea. Previous attempts at surpassing this depth were foiled due to the complete absence of light and the high water pressure achieved at this depth. Furthermore, the [[thermocline]] could damage equipment in the vehicle.

The deeper parts of the ocean are explored through the usage of [[submersibles]], a notable example of which is the voyage to find the sunken [[RMS Titanic#Titanic found]], and the usage of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

[[Category:oceans]]
[[Category:technology]]

Deep ocean

2008-12-16T04:58:29Z

EelisA: whoops

'''Deep ocean''' also called deep-sea, refers to the nearly unreachable depths of the worlds oceans the exceed 1000 fathoms (1828 meters). Due to advances in technology, [[mankind]] is finally able to explore uncharted areas of the sea. Previous attempts at surpassing this depth were foiled due to the complete absence of light and the high water pressure achieved at this depth. Furthermore, the [[thermocline]] could damage equipment in the vehicle.

The deeper parts of the ocean are explored through the usage of [[submersibles]], a notable example of which is the voyage to find the sunken [[Titanic]], and the usage of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

[[Category:oceans]]
[[Category:technology]]

Deep ocean

2008-12-16T04:58:03Z

EelisA: Touch-up

'''Deep ocean''' also called deep-sea, refers to the nearly unreachable depths of the worlds oceans the exceed 1000 fathoms (1828 meters). Due to advances in technology, [[mankind]] is finally able to explore uncharted areas of the sea. Previous attempts at surpassing this depth were foiled due to the complete absence of light and the high water pressure achieved at this depth. Furthermore, the [[thermocline]] could damage equipment in the vehicle.

The deeper parts of the ocean are explored through the usage of [[submersibles), a notable example of which is the voyage to find the sunken [[Titanic]], and the usage of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

[[Category:oceans]]
[[Category:technology]]

Talk:Soul

2008-12-16T04:54:01Z

EelisA: /* Regarding the soul and animals */ new section

Cleaned up this article a bit, needs to cite sources though. - anon

Looks suspiciously like satire to me... but I cant take it out, it does make an argument, and I cant see the counter-argument! We need a philosopher to take a look at it and produce a nice solid proof that the soul exists. Or at the very least, explain what it does.

Cut from article:

:To date, there is no definitive record of a soul being observed and detected, although Dr. Duncan MacDougall did conduct an experiment that recorded a weight of two-tenths of an ounce in 1907. As the soul clearly exists - without it, an afterlife would not be possible and all of Christianity would be wrong -the only possible explanation for the lack of observations is that the soul must me invisible in all wavelengths, able to pass through ordinary matter, and thus difficult to detect. As an undetectable object cannot be proven not to exist, it follows that it must exist.

:The soul is widely considered to be responsible for some function [citation needed]. Exactly what this something is remains a subject of debate, as all of the traditional functions for the soul - higher thinking, emotions, a moral sense, memory - have now been identified as a function of the brain. However, as there would be little point in saving a soul without memories, it is likely the soul replicates the contents of the brain.

I dispute the part about "identified as a function of the brain". Researchers have merely determined that if various parts of the brain are destroyed or severed, then these functions are impaired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverting: Already understood soul can not be viewed by what is stated above. Giving a list of devices that can not find it is therefore meaningless. Concept of the brain taking over the roles of the soul not cited; would need specific back up. Had already merged in thoughts on when soul enters the body. Little else of use except to be controversial to be controversial. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:37, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, revert war, fun! I wont just rever though, I want to have a think about this and see if I can make what I wrote a bit clearer. But...
* I will try to be clearer regarding the implications of the non-falsifiability of the soul, and the idea that the absence of evidence after an intense search can be strong evidence of absence, even though it can never be absolute proof.
* I will see what I can dig up for citations on the brain thing.
* Thanks for the merge, but I was a little annoyed to see how much it shrunk.
* I was being controversial in the hope of provoking some debate here. The nature of the soul is a rather vaguely-defined thing, I would like to see some discussion take place over it.
- Suricou

::I think you're spinning your wheels a bit unless you can get something more concrete. Wanting to debate philosophical questions isn't going to make it into the final article in any form that detracts from the 'concise' nature of conservapedia. This isn't wiki. Trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial isn't what conservapedia is all about. On the other hand, if you dig up meaningful information that adds to the knowledge of the soul, then by all means it will find its way into the article. I included your question on the soul in regard to abortion because that is a meaningful consideration. Talking about if twins have 1/2 a soul or what happens with chimeras is silly. If you want to dig and get research on the early church fathers and their concept of a soul and how that ties into modern brain function, some form of that would probably stay as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding the soul and animals ==

My knowledge on this is a bit rusty, but what is the official doctrine of churches on the presence of souls in animals? If my memory serves me well, the churches agree that animals are granted temporary souls in order in inhabit Earth, but only humans have permanent everlasting souls. The exception (again with the memory!) is Buddhism, which believe in reincarnation, hence, the soul is permanant untill achieving nhirvana (spelling?) [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 23:54, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Mind

2008-12-16T04:45:40Z

EelisA: /* Functionalism */ Finished funtionalism.

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]', but it is sometimes used to refer to the activities of such.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers are capable of introspecting concepts. Titchner offered no means by which a "well trained" observer could be recognised.

Like his predecessor, Wundt, Titchner listed the elements he believed made the mind function, a total of 44,000 [[sense|sensational]] elements. He further broke these elements into four categories
#Quality - What seperates one sensation from another
#Intensity - How strong the sensation is
#Duration - How long a sensation lasts for
#Clearness - How detailed the sensation is

==Functionalism==
Unlike Structuralism, Functionalism focused more heavily on what the mind does, and became the dominant model of its time. Functionalism focused on how and what caused the mind to function, and this movement is most closely attributed to John Dewey and James Rowland Angell. It was William James, however, who served as the person who began the functionalist movement. His writings and works, for the most part, stated that an individual created the notion of elements by attempting to stop the mind's ongoing activity. He stated, furthermore, that it was possible for two people to experience the same event in a different way, owing to the different functions of different minds.

==The Gestalt Movement==
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" best summarises the Gestalt movement. This branch refered to Structuralism and Functionalism as "brick and mortar psychology", and saw the "whole" experience of the mind as a Gestalt. The primary characteristic of the Gestalt is the importancs of the consciousness, and the belief that wholes cannot be reduced to a listing with a description of the parts. The Gestalt movement proposed [[Principles of Perception]], which focus on how we tend to group objects.
#Proximity - Similar objects group
#Similarity - Similar looking objects group, even despite proximity
#Pragnanz - The idea that we naturally attempt to make a "perfect shape"
#Closure - Our tendancy to complete incomplete shapes.

This particular theory was proposed by German Cognitive Scientists [[Max Wertheimer]], [[Kurt Koffa]], and [[Wolfgang Kohler]]
==Psychoanalysis==
Perhaps the most well known branch, Psychoanalysis was founded by [[Sigmund Freud]] and focuses on the three divisions of the mind, the [[Ego]], the [[Superego]], and the [[Id]]. Freud proposed that the Id, being completly unconscious, was in control of our wants and desires, and demanded immediate satisfaction of its wants. The Superego was responsible for our ethical sense, seeking to supress the Id, and the Ego balanced the needs of the Id and Superego. The Ego operates on what Freud termed the "reality principle", operating in a rational and pragmatic fashion.
==Behaviorism==
The weaknesses in Frued's theory were the strenghts that made up Behaviorism. Instead of attempting to describe the complexity of the mind, the Behaviorist branch focused on behavior. In the view of Behaviorists, the internal workins of the ind are too complex to be measured in an objective and scientific fashion, and that behaviors, being observable, are the best way to describe the mind. Humans, for the sake of study, were de facte lumped into the same category as animals, making behaviorism a more general science.

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:EelisA

2008-12-16T04:40:55Z

EelisA: Another response

I did some quick research on your material and does not appear you were inserting gibberish into pages. Sorry for the block. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]
:And thank you very much for undoing that block. I was a bit suprised when I was banned with an ''infinite'' expiry time, which I view as overly harsh, but it is in the past, and life goes on :) [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 23:40, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Attention

2008-12-16T04:39:37Z

EelisA: reply

*Not to be arrogant,'' I hope'', but as I read this article I couldn't help but think of microprocessor interupts and parallel processing. Might there be some theories about attention that attempt to make parallels with these well-understood mechanical forms of information processing? Someone has probably already explored such models, no? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 20:53, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:It is interesting to note that there is a Philosophical approach that likens the mind to a machine, I will get to adding that when I do the [[Philosophy of Mind]] article. I was planning on elaborating a bit more on [[brain]] and perhaps [[soul]], but I see that the soul is a bit of a touchy article, so I might shy somewhat from that. As for a direct answer to your question, the Cognitive approach (which literally views the mind as a predicitable machine) is the closest to a model that compares to information processing. [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 23:39, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Mind

2008-12-14T22:31:18Z

EelisA: /* Behaviorism */ More on this when I get back.

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]', but it is sometimes used to refer to the activities of such.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers are capable of introspecting concepts. Titchner offered no means by which a "well trained" observer could be recognised.

Like his predecessor, Wundt, Titchner listed the elements he believed made the mind function, a total of 44,000 [[sense|sensational]] elements. He further broke these elements into four categories
#Quality - What seperates one sensation from another
#Intensity - How strong the sensation is
#Duration - How long a sensation lasts for
#Clearness - How detailed the sensation is

==Functionalism==
Unlike Structuralism, Functionalism ceased comepletly to focus on the makeup of the mind.
==The Gestalt Movement==
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" best summarises the Gestalt movement. This branch refered to Structuralism and Functionalism as "brick and mortar psychology", and saw the "whole" experience of the mind as a Gestalt. The primary characteristic of the Gestalt is the importancs of the consciousness, and the belief that wholes cannot be reduced to a listing with a description of the parts. The Gestalt movement proposed [[Principles of Perception]], which focus on how we tend to group objects.
#Proximity - Similar objects group
#Similarity - Similar looking objects group, even despite proximity
#Pragnanz - The idea that we naturally attempt to make a "perfect shape"
#Closure - Our tendancy to complete incomplete shapes.

This particular theory was proposed by German Cognitive Scientists [[Max Wertheimer]], [[Kurt Koffa]], and [[Wolfgang Kohler]]
==Psychoanalysis==
Perhaps the most well known branch, Psychoanalysis was founded by [[Sigmund Freud]] and focuses on the three divisions of the mind, the [[Ego]], the [[Superego]], and the [[Id]]. Freud proposed that the Id, being completly unconscious, was in control of our wants and desires, and demanded immediate satisfaction of its wants. The Superego was responsible for our ethical sense, seeking to supress the Id, and the Ego balanced the needs of the Id and Superego. The Ego operates on what Freud termed the "reality principle", operating in a rational and pragmatic fashion.
==Behaviorism==
The weaknesses in Frued's theory were the strenghts that made up Behaviorism. Instead of attempting to describe the complexity of the mind, the Behaviorist branch focused on behavior. In the view of Behaviorists, the internal workins of the ind are too complex to be measured in an objective and scientific fashion, and that behaviors, being observable, are the best way to describe the mind. Humans, for the sake of study, were de facte lumped into the same category as animals, making behaviorism a more general science.

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mind

2008-12-14T22:22:07Z

EelisA: Freud's psychoanalysis. I will finish behaviorism, then I have to leave.

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]', but it is sometimes used to refer to the activities of such.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers are capable of introspecting concepts. Titchner offered no means by which a "well trained" observer could be recognised.

Like his predecessor, Wundt, Titchner listed the elements he believed made the mind function, a total of 44,000 [[sense|sensational]] elements. He further broke these elements into four categories
#Quality - What seperates one sensation from another
#Intensity - How strong the sensation is
#Duration - How long a sensation lasts for
#Clearness - How detailed the sensation is

==Functionalism==
Unlike Structuralism, Functionalism ceased comepletly to focus on the makeup of the mind.
==The Gestalt Movement==
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" best summarises the Gestalt movement. This branch refered to Structuralism and Functionalism as "brick and mortar psychology", and saw the "whole" experience of the mind as a Gestalt. The primary characteristic of the Gestalt is the importancs of the consciousness, and the belief that wholes cannot be reduced to a listing with a description of the parts. The Gestalt movement proposed [[Principles of Perception]], which focus on how we tend to group objects.
#Proximity - Similar objects group
#Similarity - Similar looking objects group, even despite proximity
#Pragnanz - The idea that we naturally attempt to make a "perfect shape"
#Closure - Our tendancy to complete incomplete shapes.

This particular theory was proposed by German Cognitive Scientists [[Max Wertheimer]], [[Kurt Koffa]], and [[Wolfgang Kohler]]
==Psychoanalysis==
Perhaps the most well known branch, Psychoanalysis was founded by [[Sigmund Freud]] and focuses on the three divisions of the mind, the [[Ego]], the [[Superego]], and the [[Id]]. Freud proposed that the Id, being completly unconscious, was in control of our wants and desires, and demanded immediate satisfaction of its wants. The Superego was responsible for our ethical sense, seeking to supress the Id, and the Ego balanced the needs of the Id and Superego. The Ego operates on what Freud termed the "reality principle", operating in a rational and pragmatic fashion.
==Behaviorism==

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mind

2008-12-14T22:11:06Z

EelisA: My memory is a bit rusty on functionalism, so I focused on Gestalt.

Mind

2008-12-14T22:02:12Z

EelisA: /* Strucuturalism */ finished structuralism.

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]'.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers are capable of introspecting concepts. Titchner offered no means by which a "well trained" observer could be recognised.

Like his predecessor, Wundt, Titchner listed the elements he believed made the mind function, a total of 44,000 [[sense|sensational]] elements. He further broke these elements into four categories
#Quality - What seperates one sensation from another
#Intensity - How strong the sensation is
#Duration - How long a sensation lasts for
#Clearness - How detailed the sensation is

==Functionalism==

==The Gestalt Movement==

==Psychoanalysis==

==Behaviorism==

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mind

2008-12-14T21:58:55Z

EelisA: fixed link + 1/2 structuralism

The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]'.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.
[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
==Voluntarism==
Voluntarism is the theory of the mind formulated by [[Willhelm Wundt]], and focuses on the aspect of the mind as elements. He believed that the elements were assembled through the power of the will. [[Chemistry]] played a significant role in Wundt's theory, as he attempted to use the concept of "the small makes the ultimate result". Wundt worked with Dimitri Mendeleev (The man who wrote the [[Periodic table of the elements]].
==Strucuturalism==
Rather than focusing on how the mind works, Structuralism attempts to focus on what the mind is, although it shares a number of ideas with voluntarism, prohibiting it from doing so. This branch, formed by American psychologist [[Edward Titchener|Edward Bradfort Titchner]] focused on stimulus error, and contests that only well-trained observers
==Functionalism==

==The Gestalt Movement==

==Psychoanalysis==

==Behaviorism==

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mind

2008-12-14T21:53:22Z

EelisA: Voluntarism.

Mind

2008-12-14T21:50:31Z

EelisA: Expansion incoming.

[[Image:Mind body.jpg|left]]
The '''mind''' is the most obvious thing which sets apart human beings from animals. Mind is not synonymous with '[[brain]]'.

The mind has the capacity for [[thought]], including [[imagination]], [[foresight]], [[analysis]], and [[emotion]], which in various ways use the powers of the brain.

The faculties such as [[compassion]], [[empathy]], and the desire for [[justice]], point to man as [[God]]'s greatest [[Creationism|creation]].

There are many held perspectives and branches that deal with the mind.

==Voluntarism==

==Strucuturalism==

==Functionalism==

==The Gestalt Movement==

==Psychoanalysis==

==Behaviorism==

== See also ==

*[[Alois P. Swoboda]]
*[[Herbert Benson]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2008-12-14T21:46:13Z

EelisA: /* "First class nut" */ new section

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Phelps and the Bible ==

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Am I the only one? ==

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies? {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}
: Or does Reverend Kane look like Fred Phelps (deliberately)? (I don't know what either looks like, so I'm offering no opinion). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're definitely [http://msunderestimated.com/PhelpsKane.jpg not alone]! [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== "First class nut" ==

I have heard and seen this before, but I have been unable to find a source attributing this particular quote. Anyone care to help me out? [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 16:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Fred Phelps

2008-12-14T21:42:35Z

EelisA: give me a moment on this, I am going to see if I can find a cite...

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organisation not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behavior. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Episcopal Church]] and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut"{{fact}}.

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref>

Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined [[Bill Clinton]] on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref>
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against [[homosexuality]] and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the [[Bible]] and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the politics ==

Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name=%26quot%3Bref4%26quot%3B%26gt%3B[http%3A%2F%2Fedition%2Ecnn%2Ecom%2FALLPOLITICS%2F1998%2F08%2F05%2Fkansas%2Eresults%2F 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref> He supported [[Al Gore]] in the 1988 primaries, but turned on him in the 1992 election where he staunchly opposed Gore, [[Bill Clinton|Bill]], and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]].

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref>

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.
<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by a great number of individuals, both conservative and liberal. For example, [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said "Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion," <ref>http://www.eleventh-avenue-south.com/archives/2005/08/fred_phelps_a_p.html</ref>

Phelps was also cited during Canadian deliberations<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121806.html</ref> about declaring anti-gay sentiments to be a hate crime.

== Recent Activities ==

Phelps has recently announced that he and his group will picket the funeral service of actor [[Heath Ledger]].

== Outside links ==
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.html Oh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

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

[[Category:Religious People|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

Faucet

2008-12-14T21:36:02Z

EelisA: as per edit summary.

A faucet, also known as a spigot, is an object that controls how much water comes out of an opening.

{{category:dictionary}}

Donald Broadbent

2008-12-14T21:27:46Z

EelisA: More on broadbent.

Donald Broadbent (1926 - 1993) was a british psychologist who proposed his Filter Model as a way to explain [[attention]]. As a cognitive scientist, he focused on aspects such as [[implict learning]], and was famous for his usage of the dichotic listening task in the proposal of his model.

Broadbent was educated at the University of Cambridge, and became a director of the Applied Psychology Research Unit. He worked there untill retiring. Broadbent worked with other Psychologists and Cognitive Scientists, such as Dianne Berry, and expanded on the works of [[Frederick Bartlett]]

==References==
[http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/donald-broadbent/]

User:EelisA

2008-12-14T21:23:25Z

EelisA: Bit more about me, now back to work.

{{userboxtop|About Me}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User bigbang}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User Atheist}}
{{Userbox | White| white |CogSci| This user studies [[Cognitive Science]]}}
{{User Political Compass|-5.50|-3.38}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Donald Broadbent

2008-12-14T21:16:03Z

EelisA: It is a start.

Attention

2008-12-14T21:11:59Z

EelisA: /* Treisman's Attenuation Model */another red link. I will get to it after I make Broadbent's article.

Attention is the ability to maintain and dedicate focus to a particular task. Attention is believed to originate from sustained activity within certain areas of the brain, as of yet unknown. There are multiple theories within the cognitive perspective that deal with attention. There have been many theories formed to discuss how attention may arise.

==Broadbent's Filter Model==
British researcher [[Donald Broadbent]] was the first researcher to present a hypothesis as to how attention would occur, and how one can focus on specific events. Broadbent’s filter model proposes that the mind blocks out information irrelevant to what one is focusing on, such as, say, ignoring another conversation going on at the same time. This idea has recieved criticism owing to the following situation. Assume that you are at a party, engrossed in conversation with another partygoer, and you hear your name on the side. By all likelyhood, your attention would be diverted, which contridicts Broadbent's theory.

==Treisman's Attenuation Model==
Triesman's attenuation model is a similar theory to that of Broadbent, but it has one exception. Rather than completly blocking "irrelevant" information, Triesman proposes that the mind merely reduces the scale of the information. This attenuation is similar to having water running through two [[faucet|faucets]]. Triesman proposes that one conversation in the party example would be like having one faucet completly open (the primary conversation) and your name being the second faucet (you recieve it, but you miss the rest of the conversation.) In a nutshell, this theory states that the mind does not block other information, but that it instead limits information, and lets through important information. Examples of blocked information would be, for example, the word "chair" which, in the party situation, would be irrelevant to your conversation.

==The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model==
Unlike the previous models, the Deutsch-Norman theory states that a second selection process occurs in the procedure of determining what is and what is not irrelevant information. In this model, recieved information is filtered for size, proximity, and other factors that determine how much attention is paid to an object, an example being as follows
 
 
<big><big><big>A</big></big></big> A
 
 
As per the memory selection model, more attention was paid to the larger A, followed by a close inspection, which noticed the smaller A.

User:EelisA

2008-12-14T21:10:09Z

EelisA: While we may differ in beliefs, I am quite happy to expand the Cognitve Science here.

Attention

2008-12-14T21:02:06Z

EelisA: Tweaked Triesman. I need to find his first name...

Attention is the ability to maintain and dedicate focus to a particular task. Attention is believed to originate from sustained activity within certain areas of the brain, as of yet unknown. There are multiple theories within the cognitive perspective that deal with attention. There have been many theories formed to discuss how attention may arise.

==Broadbent's Filter Model==
British researcher [[Donald Broadbent]] was the first researcher to present a hypothesis as to how attention would occur, and how one can focus on specific events. Broadbent’s filter model proposes that the mind blocks out information irrelevant to what one is focusing on, such as, say, ignoring another conversation going on at the same time. This idea has recieved criticism owing to the following situation. Assume that you are at a party, engrossed in conversation with another partygoer, and you hear your name on the side. By all likelyhood, your attention would be diverted, which contridicts Broadbent's theory.

==Treisman's Attenuation Model==
Triesman's attenuation model is a similar theory to that of Broadbent, but it has one exception. Rather than completly blocking "irrelevant" information, Triesman proposes that the mind merely reduces the scale of the information. This attenuation is similar to having water running through two faucets. Triesman proposes that one conversation in the party example would be like having one faucet completly open (the primary conversation) and your name being the second faucet (you recieve it, but you miss the rest of the conversation.) In a nutshell, this theory states that the mind does not block other information, but that it instead limits information, and lets through important information. Examples of blocked information would be, for example, the word "chair" which, in the party situation, would be irrelevant to your conversation.

==The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model==
Unlike the previous models, the Deutsch-Norman theory states that a second selection process occurs in the procedure of determining what is and what is not irrelevant information. In this model, recieved information is filtered for size, proximity, and other factors that determine how much attention is paid to an object, an example being as follows
 
 
<big><big><big>A</big></big></big> A
 
 
As per the memory selection model, more attention was paid to the larger A, followed by a close inspection, which noticed the smaller A.

Attention

2008-12-14T20:55:01Z

EelisA: /* The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model */ Moveing around a bit

Attention is the ability to maintain and dedicate focus to a particular task. Attention is believed to originate from sustained activity within certain areas of the brain, as of yet unknown. There are multiple theories within the cognitive perspective that deal with attention.

==Broadbent's Filter Model==
British researcher Donald Broadbent was the first researcher to present a hypothesis as to how attention would occur, and how one can focus on specific events. Broadbent’s filter model proposes that the mind blocks out information irrelevant to what one is focusing on, such as, say, ignoring another conversation going on at the same time. This idea has recieved criticism owing to the following situation. Assume that you are at a party, engrossed in conversation with another partygoer, and you hear your name on the side. By all likelyhood, your attention would be diverted, which contridicts Broadbent's theory.

==Treisman's Attenuation Model==
Triesman's attenuation model is a similar theory to that of Broadbent, but it has one exception. Rather than completly blocking "irrelevant" information, Triesman proposes that the mind merely reduces the scale of the information. This attenuation is similar to having water running through two faucets. Triesman proposes that one conversation in the party example would be like having one faucet completly open (the primary conversation) and your name being the second faucet (you recieve it, but you miss the rest of the conversation.) In a nutshell, this theory states that the mind does not block other information, but that it instead limits information, and lets through important information.

==The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model==
Unlike the previous models, the Deutsch-Norman theory states that a second selection process occurs in the procedure of determining what is and what is not irrelevant information. In this model, recieved information is filtered for size, proximity, and other factors that determine how much attention is paid to an object, an example being as follows
 
 
<big><big><big>A</big></big></big> A
 
 
As per the memory selection model, more attention was paid to the larger A, followed by a close inspection, which noticed the smaller A.

Attention

2008-12-14T20:54:36Z

EelisA: /* The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model */Expanded.

Attention is the ability to maintain and dedicate focus to a particular task. Attention is believed to originate from sustained activity within certain areas of the brain, as of yet unknown. There are multiple theories within the cognitive perspective that deal with attention.

==Broadbent's Filter Model==
British researcher Donald Broadbent was the first researcher to present a hypothesis as to how attention would occur, and how one can focus on specific events. Broadbent’s filter model proposes that the mind blocks out information irrelevant to what one is focusing on, such as, say, ignoring another conversation going on at the same time. This idea has recieved criticism owing to the following situation. Assume that you are at a party, engrossed in conversation with another partygoer, and you hear your name on the side. By all likelyhood, your attention would be diverted, which contridicts Broadbent's theory.

==Treisman's Attenuation Model==
Triesman's attenuation model is a similar theory to that of Broadbent, but it has one exception. Rather than completly blocking "irrelevant" information, Triesman proposes that the mind merely reduces the scale of the information. This attenuation is similar to having water running through two faucets. Triesman proposes that one conversation in the party example would be like having one faucet completly open (the primary conversation) and your name being the second faucet (you recieve it, but you miss the rest of the conversation.) In a nutshell, this theory states that the mind does not block other information, but that it instead limits information, and lets through important information.

==The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model==
Unlike the previous models, the Deutsch-Norman theory states that a second selection process occurs in the procedure of determining what is and what is not irrelevant information. In this model, recieved information is filtered for size, proximity, and other factors that determine how much attention is paid to an object, an example being as follows
 
 
 
<big><big><big>A</big></big></big> A 
As per the memory selection model, more attention was paid to the larger A, followed by a close inspection, which noticed the smaller A.

United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea

2008-12-14T20:50:19Z

EelisA: Fixed what I think is a spelling error. I do not know of any country called "Unkown"

[[Image:UNMCK_flags.jpg|center|thumb|600px|Flags of the 16 nations who fought as part of the United Nations force against communist agression]]
 
[[Image:UNMCK_plaque.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Entrance plaque to the memorial]]
The '''United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea''' is located in the South Korean city of Pusan and commemorates the dead soldiers of 16 countries who fell during the [[Korean War]] between 1951 and 1953.

Although the [[United States]], [[France]], [[Norway]] and [[Thailand]] mostly repatriated the bodies of their heroes, 2,3000 allied servicemen are buried in the memorial gardens.

{|class="wikitable"
!Nation
!Interred
|-
|Australia
|281
|-
|Canada
|278
|-
|France
|44
|-
|Netherlands
|117
|-
|New Zealand
|34
|-
|Norway
|1
|-
|South Africa
| 11
|-
|South Korea
|36
|-
|Turkey
|462
|-
|United Kingdom
|885
|-
|United States
|36
|-
|Unknown
|4
|-
|Non-combatants
|11
|}
[[Image:UNMCK_Australia.jpg|right|thumb|180px|Australian memorial]]
[[Image:UNMCK_Canada.jpg|right|thumb|180px|Canadian memorial]]
[[Image:UNMCK_UK.jpg|right|thumb|180px|Some of the 885 British graves]]

Attention

2008-12-14T20:49:10Z

EelisA: /* Treisman's Attenuation Model */ Treisman, expanded.

Attention is the ability to maintain and dedicate focus to a particular task. Attention is believed to originate from sustained activity within certain areas of the brain, as of yet unknown. There are multiple theories within the cognitive perspective that deal with attention.

==Broadbent's Filter Model==
British researcher Donald Broadbent was the first researcher to present a hypothesis as to how attention would occur, and how one can focus on specific events. Broadbent’s filter model proposes that the mind blocks out information irrelevant to what one is focusing on, such as, say, ignoring another conversation going on at the same time. This idea has recieved criticism owing to the following situation. Assume that you are at a party, engrossed in conversation with another partygoer, and you hear your name on the side. By all likelyhood, your attention would be diverted, which contridicts Broadbent's theory.

==Treisman's Attenuation Model==
Triesman's attenuation model is a similar theory to that of Broadbent, but it has one exception. Rather than completly blocking "irrelevant" information, Triesman proposes that the mind merely reduces the scale of the information. This attenuation is similar to having water running through two faucets. Triesman proposes that one conversation in the party example would be like having one faucet completly open (the primary conversation) and your name being the second faucet (you recieve it, but you miss the rest of the conversation.) In a nutshell, this theory states that the mind does not block other information, but that it instead limits information, and lets through important information.

==The Deutsch-Norman memory selection model==
This model states that a second selection process occurs in the process of receiving information. This mechanism chooses select items to go into short-term memory and our consciousness.

Attention

2008-12-14T20:45:10Z

EelisA: Expanded Broadbent.

Attention

2008-12-14T20:42:32Z

EelisA: I will expand this a bit more, just saving what I have.