Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Thomas Edison

2007-03-23T03:06:59Z

Gasmonkey:

I question that rollback by MountainDew, whom I rarely question. He's right that Edison professed at times to be agnostic, probably more so later in life. But consistent, dedicated, lifelong agnostics are rare. It wouldn't surprise me if Edison did credit God for his inventions earlier in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Possibly true, but is this "encyclopedia" a place for suppositions? Sadly, it seem it is.
-Gasmonkey

Liberal

2007-03-23T02:47:36Z

Gasmonkey:

'''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" — at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:

* support of gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
* progressive tax stucture with higher taxes for wealthier individuals
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of all of God's creation even if advocated by atheists
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* increased taxes
* support of government programs such as welfare
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education about human reproduction
* opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html National Strategy for Victory in Iraq], November 30, 2005. retrieved 22 March 2007.</ref>
*pressuring government to support human rights through policy change.<ref>
www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2005/0202shieldkillers.htm
www.genocidewatch.org/SudanLIBERALISMANDDARFURNov05.htm
savedarfur.org/page/community/group/IndianapolisCoalitiontoSaveDarfur

Liberals in the US typically align themselves with the [[Democratic Party]]. Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to the so-called moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

After opposition to the regime change of Saddam Hussein in 2003, it became increasingly difficult to define what American liberals core beliefs are. Large scale demonstrations coupled with the rhetoric current at the time was decisively pro-Saddam and in sympathy with insuring survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime in Iraq. It also signified a rejection of liberalism's long held fundamental advocacy of democracy and human rights worldwide.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Liberal

2007-03-23T02:36:26Z

Gasmonkey: there are just as many instances of liberals supporting human rights through pushing us policy.

'''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" — at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:

* support of gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of all of God's creation even if advocated by atheists
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* increased taxes
* support of government programs such as welfare
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education about human reproduction

Liberals in the US typically align themselves with the [[Democratic Party]]. Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to the so-called moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

After opposition to the regime change of Saddam Hussein in 2003, it became increasingly difficult to define what American liberals core beliefs are. Large scale demonstrations coupled with the rhetoric current at the time was decisively pro-Saddam and in sympathy with insuring survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime in Iraq. It also signified a rejection of liberalism's long held fundamental advocacy of democracy and human rights worldwide.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Liberal

2007-03-23T02:32:49Z

Gasmonkey:

'''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" — at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:

* support of gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of all of God's creation even if advocated by atheists
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* increased taxes
* support of government programs such as welfare
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education about human reproduction

Liberals in the US typically align themselves with the [[Democratic Party]]. Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to the so-called moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

After opposition to the regime change of Saddam Hussein in 2003, it became increasingly difficult to define what American liberals core beliefs are. Large scale demonstrations coupled with the rhetoric current at the time was decisively pro-Saddam and in sympathy with insuring survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime in Iraq. It also signified a rejection of liberalism's long held fundamental advocacy of democracy and human rights worldwide.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Slavery

2007-03-21T18:49:50Z

Gasmonkey: /* Ancient History */

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves, however later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is still considered a contribution to America's greatness.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible, for example:

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* Exodus 21:7 states that a man may sell his daughter into slavery.

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul returning a slave to his owner.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Slavery

2007-03-21T18:44:10Z

Gasmonkey: /* End of Slavery */

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is still considered a contribution to America's greatness.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when liberals such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the socialist-influenced Northern government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible, for example:

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* Exodus 21:7 states that a man may sell his daughter into slavery.

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul returning a slave to his owner.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Slavery

2007-03-21T18:41:02Z

Gasmonkey: /* Is this a joke? */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean, Jesus Christ. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

Slavery

2007-03-21T18:38:23Z

Gasmonkey: /* End of Slavery */

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves (although no other historical accounts mention Hebrew slaves in Egypt). The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is still considered a contribution to America's greatness.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when liberals such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the supposed "evils" of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the socialist-influenced Northern government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in South America it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible, for example:

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* Exodus 21:7 states that a man may sell his daughter into slavery.

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul returning a slave to his owner.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

God

2007-03-21T17:39:49Z

Gasmonkey: seriously??

The term '''god''' is applied to a deitic being that is worshipped as part of a theistic belief system. Monotheistic religions are the most common and include Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

==The Christian God==

According to Christian teaching, God is the creator of the universe. Christianity has understood since about the fourth century that God is a trinity comprised of the [[Father]], the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and the [[Holy Spirit]]. His [[creation]] of man is described in the [[Book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]]. It is written in the Bible that a belief in God (specifically, belief in [[Jesus Christ]] as one's personal lord and savior) is a necessary condition to go to [[heaven]] (rather than [[hell]]) in the afterlife.

Common powers attributed to the Christian God include [[omnipotence]] (the ability to do anything), [[omniscience]] (the ability to know anything), and [[omnipresence]] (the ability to be everywhere at once). Many believers in this God also believe that he eternally punishes the wicked in [[hell]] and eternally rewards the righteous in [[heaven]]. While God is said to be unique, the Old Testament in fact mentions 'other gods' constantly.

==Notes==

It is claimed that [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]] worship the same God in different ways. This claim is regarded by some as a way to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, since it supports the idea that Abrahamic religion has "grown" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm</ref> However, many are skeptical of this idea.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Religion]]

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-21T17:14:02Z

Gasmonkey:

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.
--Facio

== Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2007-03-20T23:00:05Z

Gasmonkey:

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-03-18T13:57:04Z

Gasmonkey: /* Protected */

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself.
On to a different topic,with a final question for this afternoon. Could fire be considered a life form? For example it respires like some life. It spreads like life but only with a sustainable food/wood source? There are many similar qualities between fire and DNA based life.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Human embryo

2007-03-16T03:27:42Z

Gasmonkey: For the last time, spermatazoa is singular as is ova. a human embryo is formed by the joining of A sperm and AN egg. There is a reproductive genetics technician looking over this right now.

== Definition ==

A '''human embryo''' is the first stage of human development.

It is formed by the fusion of the male gamete (spermatozoa or "sperm") and female gamete (ova or "egg"). This is called fertilization and usually occurs in the proximal portion of the female reproductive tract.

== Controversies ==

There are several controversial issues involving human embryos.

IVF: Traditionally, fertilization occurs via insemination of a female by a male during marital relations. However, reproductive science has created many advances in fertilization, allowing infertile couples to have their own biological children.
In vitro (in glass) fertilization allows for the creation of embryos in a laboratory.
This embryo is then surgically implanted in the mother. The first so-called "test tube baby" was born in 1979 and is now a healthy female adult. There has been a great deal of controversy about this practice, and there are many interesting moral/religious viewpoints on the topic. Many see IVF as a way for couples to help fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, others see it as science invading the territory of natural marital reproduction.

Abortion: abortion interrupts the development of an embryo into a living baby separate from its mother. This issue is addressed in depth elsewhere.

Stem cells: also addressed extensively elsewhere. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Stem_cell_research]]

Talk:Human embryo

2007-03-16T03:22:01Z

Gasmonkey:

If you are going to write something please make sure you are writing it correctly. Ova is singular. Ovum is plural. Spermatazoon is plural. Spermatazoa is a single sperm. One ova combines with one spermatazoa= an Embryo.

Human embryo

2007-03-16T03:18:29Z

Gasmonkey: Spermatazoa and ova are singular. Only one of each fuse to become an embryo.

== Definition ==

A '''human embryo''' is the first stage of human developement.

It is formed by the fusion of the male gamete (spermatozoa or "sperm") and female gamete (ova or "egg"). This is called fertilization and usually occurs in the proximal portion of the female reproductive tract.

== Controversies ==

There are several controversial issues involving human embryos.

IVF: Traditionally, fertilization occurs via insemination of a female by a male during marital relations. However, reproductive science has created many advances in fertilization, allowing infertile couples to have their own biological children.
In vitro (in glass) fertilization allows for the creation of embryos in a laboratory.
This embryo is then surgically implated in the mother. This is also know as artificial insemination. The first so-called "test tube baby" was born in the 70s and is now a healthy female adult. There has been a great deal of controversy about this practice, and there are many interesting moral/religious viewpoints on the topic. Many see IVF as a way for couples to help fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, others see it as science invading the territory of natural marital reproduction.

Abortion: abortion interrupts the development of an embryo into a living baby separate from its mother. This issue is addressed in depth elsewhere.

Stem cells: also addressed extensively elsewhere. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Stem_cell_research]]

Human embryo

2007-03-16T03:13:12Z

Gasmonkey: made singular instead of plural. and corrected spelling.

== Definition ==

A '''human embryo''' is the first stage of human developement.

It is formed by the fusion of the male gamete (spermatozoa) and female gamete (ova). This is called fertilization and usually occurs in the proximal portion of the female reproductive tract.

== Controversies ==

There are several controversial issues involving human embryos.

IVF: Traditionally, fertilization occurs via insemination of a female by a male during marital relations. However, reproductive science has created many advances in fertilization, allowing infertile couples to have their own biological children.
In vitro (in glass) fertilization allows for the creation of embryos in a laboratory.
This embryo is then surgically implated in the mother. This is also know as artificial insemination. The first so-called "test tube baby" was born in the 70s and is now a healthy female adult. There has been a great deal of controversy about this practice, and there are many interesting moral/religious viewpoints on the topic. Many see IVF as a way for couples to help fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, others see it as science invading the territory of natural marital reproduction.

Abortion: abortion interrupts the development of an embryo into a living baby separate from its mother. This issue is addressed in depth elsewhere.

Stem cells: also addressed extensively elsewhere.

Environmentalist

2007-03-16T03:01:55Z

Gasmonkey:

'''Environmentalists''' are people who are concerned with protecting the environment.
Many environmentalists support a program of reducing usage of power and materials, and the reusing and recycling of waste. Enviromentalists are concerned about protecting and preserving the natural resources of this country and the world.

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-03-16T03:00:57Z

Gasmonkey:

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else.
-Gasmonkey

:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:

[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
*Red China
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB)
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC)
Supporting Organizations:
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF)
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!)
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]]

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:
*Earth First! (EF!)
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE)
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF)
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.

Racism

2007-03-16T02:53:38Z

Gasmonkey: Racism is in fact institutionalized.

Racism is the process of making judgments based on race. More precisly, racism is institutionalized bigotry. Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions, and then making such generalizations part of society. An example is notions of black inferiority being manifested in the form of Jim Crowe laws. As of recent, racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the equal protection clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-15T18:24:44Z

Gasmonkey: Support the troops has lost all meaning due to overuse.

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when the United States and allies including the United Kingdom<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], locating [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] including "knowhow" to produce WMD and liberating the Iraqi people. The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. The Administration has been widely criticized for supposed strategic blunders in the execution of the war, including the failure to have a post-invasion plan.{{fact}} The American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war.

===Iraqi Liberation===
Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the proceeding months, were optimistic about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-Zogby poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better".<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled form Baghdad. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm</ref>

===Iraqi Resistance===
However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt</ref>.

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html</ref>

Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been in the middle of Arab Sunni and Arab Shia. Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilge of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], 23 January 2007.</ref>

===Weapons of Mass Destruction===

While, aside from two mobile biological weapons labs seized in April 2003, massive stockpiles and production facilities of Iraq's WMD programs have not been located, persons associated with the programs have been detained and documents related to various programs have yet to be translated. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], 30 September 2004.</ref> Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the [[Gulf War|First Gulf War]], and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more.

===Costs===

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost approximately $400Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.

Germ theory of disease

2007-03-15T17:22:25Z

Gasmonkey:

The Germ Theory of Disease (also called the pathogenic theory of medicine) is a scientific theory that suggests that [[microorganisms]] are the cause of many diseases. This theory was extremely controversial when first proposed, but today it is the backbone of modern medicine. This theory was first proposed by [[Girolamo Fracastoro]] in [[1546]] and was furthered by many other scientists before it became widely accepted as true.

The [[Christian Scientist]] sect, founded by [[Mary Baker Eddy]], believes that the Germ Theory of Disease is not true and that it is contradicted by Scripture.<ref>http://www.spirituality.com/tte/article_display.jhtml?ElementId=/repositories/shcomarticle/Feb2006/1140106869.xml</ref> Modern medical science has shown this to be un unhealthy and ill-advised position to take.

==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Skateboarding

2007-03-15T17:19:10Z

Gasmonkey: /* Nuisances */ Seriously??

Skateboarding is by some considered a sport, by others an art.

Invented in the early 1970's skateboarding became a way to practice surfing in the off-season. From there it only progressed to become what it is today.

In 1998, the New York Times reported that skateboarding was "the fastest-growing sports in America."<ref>"New England Tries to Adapt to Sound of Skateboards," ''The New York Times,'' October 18, 1998, p. 33</ref>

==Skateboards and the public==
[[image:5858 everything-prohibited.jpg|thumb|right|180px|An all-too-typical sign from a town determined to protect its citizens from the evils of... frisbees?]]
Skateboarding is usually regulated by local ordinances; "the laws" governing skateboarding vary from town to town.

Unfortunately some believed it is an unlawful thing and therefore was despised by so many. However, it is quite the opposite being one of the most common sport/art practiced today.

The first mention of the word "skateboard" in ''The New York Times'' is a 1965 story, "Montclair Official Plans an Ordinance to Ban Skateboards"<ref>"Montclair Official Plans an Ordinance to Ban Skateboards", The New York Times, April 29, 1965, p. 37</ref> calling it "the latest juvenile fad on wheels" and quoting an official as saying "These devices are most dangerous... because of their speed on inclines and the difficulty in controlling them."

The early skateboard was referred to as a "banana board" for it's shape and bright, yellow plastic deck. Stacy Peralta was a pioneer of skateboarding in the Cailfornia Bay area in the 70's. He later teamed up with George Powell to create Powell-Peralta, the legendary skateboarding monolith that cultivated early skating powerhouses such as Mike McGill, inventor of the McTwist, and Tony Hawk, who ultimately propelled skateboarding to the commercial success it eventually became.

Through touring and local "demos," professional skateboarders cultivated a massive following and utlized varying media, including magazines such as Thrasher and Transworld, in addition to SK8 TV (which aired for a brief time in the early 1990s on the cable channel Nickelodeon) and the 1987 cult classic film "Gleaming the Cube," starring christian Slater as a rebellious teen, who uses skateboarding as the vehicle to change himself, while locating his brother's murderer.

Mike McGill is Mr. Slater's stunt double and Tony Hawk, among several other skaters, makes a cameo appearance as a Pizza Hut truck driver.

Upon the first wave of commercialism to hit skateboarding, the introduction of public skateparks became increasingly common. With the new terrain available to a wider populous of skateboarding youth, more and more amateur skateboarders entered the scene and challenged the monopoly of skateboarding companies such as Powell Peralta, World Industries (headed by Skateboarding mogul Steve Rocco) H-Street, Santa Cruz and Vision.

From these larger companies sprang subsidiaries and off-shoots such as Blind (a subtle jab at Vision) headed by Mark Gonzalez and Jason Lee as well as Plan B. In 1992, these two companies arguably changed the face of skateboarding forever with the release of two skate videos entitled "Video Days" and "The Questionable Video". These videos featured professional skateboarders defying the very laws of physics and popularized the use of music other than punk, hard-core and heavy metal. Skateboarding then became what the iconoclastic founders feared the most "trendy".

As skateboarding remains no exception to the rules of free market economics, the 1990s saw hundreds of companies enter the trend and subsequently die out.

Currently, skateboarding has entered the mainstream of youth pop culture with video games and televised commercials featuring the art. Public skateparks have sprung up, especially in the North East, where it was never dreamed they would. Skateparks are generally comprised of several concrete "mini-ramps," as opposed to "vert ramps" (or those ramps, which contain a vertical section beneath the coping).

== Skateboard Culture ==
Skateboard culture has been known to revolve around figureheads from the [[MTV]] show [[Jackass]] in which a performer named [[Bam Margera]] does irresponsible and immoral acts for cheap laughs. Skateboard culture has adopted this attitude as their own.
=== Nuisances ===
:* '''Skate Wax''' - Skateboarders have been known to apply layers of slippery wax to surfaces to facilitate their boards ''sliding'' or ''grinding'' over the surface. This has been known to cause accident and injury to innocent pedestrians who have slipped on surfaces made hazardous by inconsiderate skateboarders, often to the amusement of those who created the hazard. Skate wax is also notoriously difficult and expensive to clean from porous surfaces once applied.

:* '''Property Damage''' - Most skateboarders are proud vandals. The act of ''sliding'' or ''grinding'' an obstacle such as stone or concrete stairs, or handrails, is known to cause serious damage very quickly. Skateboarders who cause such damage typically will vacate the vandalized area in search of another piece of someone else's property which they might be able to destroy.

:* '''Graffiti''' - Skateboarders are known to often spray graffiti in places where they like to frequently skate. Skateparks are often covered on all surfaces by graffiti usually depicting satanist or antisocial imagery or offensive slogans and captions.

==Safety==
Helmets should be warn. Skateboarder Tony Hawk notes
:I wear helmets for protection after being knocked unconscious more than six times in my career. You never know what can happen, especially when you're starting out. I could have easily died without one.[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41366]

The National Safety Council notes:
*Never ride in the street.
*Don’t take chances. Complicated tricks require careful practice and a specially designed area. Only one person per skateboard. Never hitch a ride from a car, bus, truck, bicycle, etc.
*Learning how to fall in case of an accident may help reduce your chances of being seriously injured. If you are losing your balance, crouch down on the skateboard so that you will not have so far to fall. In a fall, try to land on the fleshy parts of your body. If you fall, try to roll rather than absorb the force with your arms. Even though it may be difficult, during a fall try to relax your body rather than stiffen.<ref>''Skateboarding Safety''[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41366]</ref>

==Notes and references==

<references/>

Skateboarding

2007-03-15T17:18:09Z

Gasmonkey: /* Skateboard Culture */

Skateboarding is by some considered a sport, by others an art.

Invented in the early 1970's skateboarding became a way to practice surfing in the off-season. From there it only progressed to become what it is today.

In 1998, the New York Times reported that skateboarding was "the fastest-growing sports in America."<ref>"New England Tries to Adapt to Sound of Skateboards," ''The New York Times,'' October 18, 1998, p. 33</ref>

==Skateboards and the public==
[[image:5858 everything-prohibited.jpg|thumb|right|180px|An all-too-typical sign from a town determined to protect its citizens from the evils of... frisbees?]]
Skateboarding is usually regulated by local ordinances; "the laws" governing skateboarding vary from town to town.

Unfortunately some believed it is an unlawful thing and therefore was despised by so many. However, it is quite the opposite being one of the most common sport/art practiced today.

The first mention of the word "skateboard" in ''The New York Times'' is a 1965 story, "Montclair Official Plans an Ordinance to Ban Skateboards"<ref>"Montclair Official Plans an Ordinance to Ban Skateboards", The New York Times, April 29, 1965, p. 37</ref> calling it "the latest juvenile fad on wheels" and quoting an official as saying "These devices are most dangerous... because of their speed on inclines and the difficulty in controlling them."

The early skateboard was referred to as a "banana board" for it's shape and bright, yellow plastic deck. Stacy Peralta was a pioneer of skateboarding in the Cailfornia Bay area in the 70's. He later teamed up with George Powell to create Powell-Peralta, the legendary skateboarding monolith that cultivated early skating powerhouses such as Mike McGill, inventor of the McTwist, and Tony Hawk, who ultimately propelled skateboarding to the commercial success it eventually became.

Through touring and local "demos," professional skateboarders cultivated a massive following and utlized varying media, including magazines such as Thrasher and Transworld, in addition to SK8 TV (which aired for a brief time in the early 1990s on the cable channel Nickelodeon) and the 1987 cult classic film "Gleaming the Cube," starring christian Slater as a rebellious teen, who uses skateboarding as the vehicle to change himself, while locating his brother's murderer.

Mike McGill is Mr. Slater's stunt double and Tony Hawk, among several other skaters, makes a cameo appearance as a Pizza Hut truck driver.

Upon the first wave of commercialism to hit skateboarding, the introduction of public skateparks became increasingly common. With the new terrain available to a wider populous of skateboarding youth, more and more amateur skateboarders entered the scene and challenged the monopoly of skateboarding companies such as Powell Peralta, World Industries (headed by Skateboarding mogul Steve Rocco) H-Street, Santa Cruz and Vision.

From these larger companies sprang subsidiaries and off-shoots such as Blind (a subtle jab at Vision) headed by Mark Gonzalez and Jason Lee as well as Plan B. In 1992, these two companies arguably changed the face of skateboarding forever with the release of two skate videos entitled "Video Days" and "The Questionable Video". These videos featured professional skateboarders defying the very laws of physics and popularized the use of music other than punk, hard-core and heavy metal. Skateboarding then became what the iconoclastic founders feared the most "trendy".

As skateboarding remains no exception to the rules of free market economics, the 1990s saw hundreds of companies enter the trend and subsequently die out.

Currently, skateboarding has entered the mainstream of youth pop culture with video games and televised commercials featuring the art. Public skateparks have sprung up, especially in the North East, where it was never dreamed they would. Skateparks are generally comprised of several concrete "mini-ramps," as opposed to "vert ramps" (or those ramps, which contain a vertical section beneath the coping).

== Skateboard Culture ==
Skateboard culture has been known to revolve around figureheads from the [[MTV]] show [[Jackass]] in which a performer named [[Bam Margera]] does irresponsible and immoral acts for cheap laughs. Skateboard culture has adopted this attitude as their own.
=== Nuisances ===
:* '''Skate Wax''' - Skateboarders have been known to apply layers of slippery wax to surfaces to facilitate their boards ''sliding'' or ''grinding'' over the surface. This has been known to cause accident and injury to innocent pedestrians who have slipped on surfaces made hazardous by inconsiderate skateboarders, often to the amusement of those who created the hazard. Skate wax is also notoriously difficult and expensive to clean from porous surfaces once applied.

:* '''Property Damage''' - Most skateboarders are proud vandals. The act of ''sliding'' or ''grinding'' an obstacle such as stone or concrete stairs, or handrails, is known to cause serious damage very quickly. Skateboarders who cause such damage typically will vacate the vandalized area in search of another piece of someone else's property which they might be able to destroy.

:* '''Violence/Antisocial Behaviour''' - The shape and material of a skateboard makes it an ideal impromptu weapon, which skateboarders often employ if confronted about their delinquent activities.

:* '''Cultism/Satanism''' - A common symbol worn or ''tagged'' (see below) by skateboarders is the Heartagram. The Heartagram is a bastardization of a Satanist's [[pentagram]] and a commonly recognized heart shape.

:* '''Graffiti''' - Skateboarders are known to often spray graffiti in places where they like to frequently skate. Skateparks are often covered on all surfaces by graffiti usually depicting satanist or antisocial imagery or offensive slogans and captions.

==Safety==
Helmets should be warn. Skateboarder Tony Hawk notes
:I wear helmets for protection after being knocked unconscious more than six times in my career. You never know what can happen, especially when you're starting out. I could have easily died without one.[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41366]

The National Safety Council notes:
*Never ride in the street.
*Don’t take chances. Complicated tricks require careful practice and a specially designed area. Only one person per skateboard. Never hitch a ride from a car, bus, truck, bicycle, etc.
*Learning how to fall in case of an accident may help reduce your chances of being seriously injured. If you are losing your balance, crouch down on the skateboard so that you will not have so far to fall. In a fall, try to land on the fleshy parts of your body. If you fall, try to roll rather than absorb the force with your arms. Even though it may be difficult, during a fall try to relax your body rather than stiffen.<ref>''Skateboarding Safety''[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41366]</ref>

==Notes and references==

<references/>

Talk:Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-15T16:27:10Z

Gasmonkey:

== Do liberals encourage sin? ==
Are you, [[user:TerryH|TerryH]] saying that [[liberals]] routinely do, and encourage others to, be unfaithfull and steal?

--[[user:orly|orly]] 14:41 15 March 2007 (CED)
:Yes, I am.

:[[Bill Clinton]] will go down in history--however much longer our history will last--as an adulterer.

:And he has many, many supporters.<blockquote>We have willing dames enough. There cannot be that [[vulture]] in you to devour so many as would to greatness dedicate themselves, finding it so inclin'd. ''MacBeth'' IV.iii.74-44</blockquote>

:Liberal politicians always get a free pass on adultery. And theft, too--witness Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).

:Liberals now dominate [[Hollywood]]--where the actors and actresses and directors and producers are awfully busy playing "musical beds." And their ethos, such as it is, informs the content of their work product. I don't go to more than one movie a year, and haven't for years. I have fellow churchmen who don't go to the movies at all--they wish never to darken the door of a motion-picture exhibition hall, because of the trash exhibited therein. And I can't blame them. They aren't missing much.

:As to theft, liberal programs amount to organized theft. If there's one thing that [[Jesus]] never would encourage, it is theft.

:Add to it their thoroughgoing yellow-ness in matters of peace and war.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, but please provide me a list of the times YOU have served in combat. I consider myself Liberal in many matters, but I have served this country for years. Calling someone yellow is an insult that in the good old days I would be justified in killing you for. Not that I would, because I value peace over war, but your comments reek of ad hominem tactics.
-Gasmonkey
:I don't have to stand for threats. Be advised that if you do not retract it at once, then I shall report you on the Abuse page. ''They'' might take the matter straight to the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]].

:Nor do I have to reply to the "chickenhawk" canard. [[Bill Clinton]] didn't serve in combat, either. Neither did [[Hillary Clinton|his wife]]. Neither did [[Albert Gore, Jr.|Al Gore]]. Neither did [[Michael Moore]].

:Now I don't know your particular position on the [[Iraq]] War, so I don't know whether you personally are yellow or not. (You want to declare yourself? Go right ahead, and then I'll judge what color you are.)--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I was not threatening you, merely illustrating that at one point in our mutual history calling someone "yellow" which is synonymous with "cowardly" was a grave insult that would lead to violence and possibly death. Labeling people as cowardly because they are liberal or have some liberal views is an ad hominem attack. Further, your list of democrats that did not serve in the military is most likely easily countered by a list of those that did, or of republicans that didn't.

As to my position on the Iraq war, I personally do not agree with it. However, I have spent three tours there, and I will quite possibly go back for a fourth. Now your little "yellow" comment about liberals would then mean that I am also a coward because I hold many liberal views. I would ask you not to throw around such insults until you yourself have spent time at a casualty collection point and had the opportunity to see first hand what a bullet does to a person's chest.
-Gasmonkey, SSG, United States Army

::I was afraid you did...

::I do feel it is sad that you so lightly put all the "[[liberals]]" in one pack, closing in on, not [[racism]] (Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions, and then making such generalizations part of society), but very close indeed. I'm not saying that I don't do the same from time to time (we are after all only humans), but at least I'm here trying to se your side of things. (And in some places getting a good laugh as well. ^__^)

::I can tell you that I do visit a movie theatre as seldom as you do, and I perhaps should tell you that I don't encourage anyone to commit crimes or be unfaithfull, and I do consider myself as liberal and [[atheism|atheistic]]. Common sense takes you there as well you know.

::--[[user:orly|orly]] 15:45 15 March 2007 (CED)

:::[[Racism]], you say? Are you, then, saying that the best liberals are born-and-bred? Your statement makes zero sense otherwise. In case you didn't know it, you don't have to be [[Caucasian]] to be conservative. Witness [[Walter E. Williams]], [[Thomas Sowell]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::And you don't have to be liberal to encourage sin. Or else why would the Bible Belt have a divorce rate almost 50% higher than the national average? That IS a sin, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Alcoholic drink

2007-03-15T16:03:36Z

Gasmonkey:

Alcoholic drinks are beverages which contain ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Ethanol is an addictive psychoactive depressant. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. Alcoholic drinks come in a multitude of varieties. Beer is a drink produced throught the fermentation of malted grains and the addition of hops. Hops give beer its distinctive bitter taste. There are also many types of beers available, each with its own unique brewing method and history. The most popular type of beer in America is the pilsner, noted for its light golden color due to the use of lightly roasted grains. Gaining in popularity are other types of beer such as porters, lagers, wheat-beer, and ales. Liquor is fermented grains that are then distilled to increase the alcohol content. Liquors are aged for years to improve flavor. Wines are produced through the fermentation of various fruits. Wines, like beer, come in a variety of types with different bouquets and flavors.

According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

The [[Bible]] speaks of consumption, or over-consumption, multiple times.

It is written:

''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"'' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

And similarly:

''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' (Galatians 5:19-21).

The bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' (Numbers 6:1-4)

''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' (Daniel 1:8)

''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:13-15)''

Most biblical scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkenness, and certainly regular drunkenness, constitutes [[sin]]; as it takes you out of your normal state of mind and alters your [[will]] and ability to make good decisions. Not to mention the potentialy serious physical ramifications of alcoholism which include liver and stomach disease as well as an increased risk of heart disease.

Alcoholic drink

2007-03-15T15:51:00Z

Gasmonkey:

Alcoholic drinks are beverages which contain ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Ethanol is an addictive psychoactive depressant. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. Alcoholic drinks come in a multitude of varieties. Beer is a drink produced throught the fermentation of malted grains and the addition of hops. Hops give beer its distinctive bitter taste. There are also many types of beers available, each with its own unique brewing method and history. The most popular type of beer in America is the pilsner, noted for its light golden color due to the use of lightly roasted grains. Gaining in popularity are other types of beer such as porters, lagers, wheat-beer, and ales. Liquor is fermented grains that are then distilled to increase the alcohol content. Liquors are aged for years to improve flavor. Wines are produced through the fermentation of various fruits. Wines, like beer, come in a variety of types with different bouquets and flavors.

According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

The [[Bible]] speaks of consumption, or over-consumption, multiple times.

It is written:

''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"'' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

And similarly:

''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' (Galatians 5:19-21).

The bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' (Numbers 6:1-4)

''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' (Daniel 1:8)

''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:13-15)''

Most scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkeness, and certainly regular drunkeness, will prevent you from entering [[Heaven]].

Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?

2007-03-15T15:37:23Z

Gasmonkey:

== Apples and Oranges ==
[[User:Phist|Phist]]Well, one is a religion and one is a societal structure, so to a degree we are compairing apples and oranges here. You could, in THEORY have a country that is both communist and islamic. While religion was of course banned in communist russia, by that point they were so far from the ideal of communism that it really should have been called something else.

For the record, I like apples better.

Islam is more powerful. Commumism was a good idea in theory but it has failed enough times in real world countries that I'm ready to discount it as a valid possibility. It simply doesn't address some aspects of human nature, and I think it's only real power right now is as an alternative to capitalism for a working class tired of being poor. But one only has to point to the still-smoking ruin of the USSR to discount the validity of that ideal.

On the other hand, Islam carries a supernatural message of hope to an entire continent of anti-american people raised with extremism being a daily reality. When a man with complete hatred of something is told that destroying his enemies is holy, and that there is a place in heaven for those who die fighting, the man is turned into a weapon. Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict.

Considering that there are over 3 billion Muslims, and a good number of them are radicals or terrorists, I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology. Communism is like third, and the second is Secular Humanism for the most powerful ideology. Unless you consider that Secular Humanism is new age communism? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'd like to see some kind of support for your claim that "a good number of them are radicals or terrorists". This smacks of blatant racism. The equivalent is me just saying that a good number of whites are inbred hicks. Stop making all Americans look ignorant.
-Gasmonkey

----
Actually, the Soviet Union never banned religion. It suppressed religion quite severely, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. However, the Soviet constitutions always included nominal guarantees of religious freedom. Also, Stalin made a point of restoring the legal position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Second World War (part of his wartime efforts to appeal to Russian nationalism).

--------

Islam. Communism is fundamentally flawed.

--------

A more accurate characterization of Soviet religious policy would be to say that the regime persecuted and clamped down on official churches, religious leaders and the like, but that its main efforts focused on making religious leaders, priests, imans, etc. agents of the state, and to dissuade religious practice through education. This reflected an official belief (which many scholars would argue had its origins in Enlightenment ideals about reason and progress) that with improved education, scientific achievement and general social progress, Soviet citizens would come to recognize the falsity of religion and would thus turn their backs on religion of their own accord.

Moreover, while many term the Soviet Union an "atheistic regime," this is perhaps technically accurate, but wildly misleading. The Soviet government was "atheistic" in the sense that it did not have an established religion (such as the Russian Orthodox Church), but in this respect it was no more atheistic than the U.S. government has always been, or how any number of other states are, where the separation of church and state prevents the official establishment of a particular religion.

Religious belief and practice never ceased to exist in the Soviet Union, nor did the Soviet government ever formally proscribe it. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 03:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)
----
"Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict." -Orion Blastar

This is an interesting statement. Does anyone remember history? What about the Christian crusades from 1095 to 1270 that accomplished little more than death and destruction? The third crusade was even focused on ransacking Constantinople, a fellow Christian state, for little more than funding further crusades. The crusades even turned internal targeting parts of southern France and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II after he was excommunicated from the church by the Pope for returning to port after becoming ill on his way to accomplish the 5th crusade (which he later accomplished through peaceful means). There are many examples of volatility as well as many current examples of radicalism in Christianity.

"Considering that there are over 3 billion Muslims, and a good number of them are radicals or terrorists, I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology." -Orion Blastar

Also an interesting statement. Islam is the second largest religion in many European countries and only 20% of Muslims are from the Middle East. If Islam were so innately hate filled and "a good number of them" were radicals, why aren't more areas of the world with prominent Muslim populations "anti-American?" Just as an example, the two largest Muslim nations in the world are India and Indonesia - non-Arab. What is going on here is a gross generalization of Muslims and Islam. Think back to our very recent history here in the US. The KKK (Klu Klux Klan) was a very heavily religious organization. What religion did they espouse? Christianity of course. The KKK was responsible for many murders and terrorist acts and is still alive today. Should we generalize all Christians and Christianity to match the KKK? Should we say that "a good number of" Christians are radicals or terrorists because of the actions of the KKK? I would hope not and I'm sure you feel the same way. --[[User:Blubuster|Blubuster]] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (PST)
----

I vote Islam. Or Communism. Wait...what was the question? Who's got the oil? Mmmm....oil.
----
Islam. We haven't seen many Communists blow themselves up to go to that great workers paradaise in the sky which they don't believe exists anyway. And Communism as a civil government lasted about 70 years, whereas Islam as a civil government has lasted 1400 years. That is 70/1400, or 5%. Not much comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Islam is NOT an ideology, it is a religion.

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-03-15T15:31:18Z

Gasmonkey:

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

Anthropology

2007-03-15T15:27:58Z

Gasmonkey:

Anthropology is a social science that studies [[human]]s from the perspective of their [[culture]]. This is different from disciplines such as [[psychology]], which uses the perspective of personality and cognition; or [[biology]], which focuses on the body.

Anthropology is usually divided into four separate disciplines, which overlap each other to varying degrees.

'''Cultural anthropology''' studies living societies. Methods of research take a whide variety of forms, ranging from living among a foreign people to digging through American trash cans. Cultural anthropologists are currently in great demand by international corporations and the Armed Forces.

'''Archaeology''' studies the material remains of cultures. There are many subfields within arcaheology. Most archaeologists are involved in academia, studying a specific culture or culture area's past. There are also many applied archaeologists who work for contractor companies or the government to preserve archaeological sites around the world.

'''Linguistic anthropology''' studies languages and their development. This is a relatively new field.

'''Physical anthropology''' studies non-human primates--chimpanzees, monkeys, evolution, human variation etc. In many ways it is more akin to biology than to traditional anthropology. Much of its focus is on the musculature, skeletal structure, and neurology of primates.

Anthropology

2007-03-15T15:27:12Z

Gasmonkey:

Anthropology is a social science that studies [[human]]s from the perspective of their [[culture]]. This is different from disciplines such as [[psychology]], which uses the perspective of personality and cognition; or [[biology]], which focuses on the body.

Anthropology is usually divided into four separate disciplines, which overlap each other to varying degrees.

'''Cultural anthropology''' studies living societies. Methods of research take a whide variety of forms, ranging from living among a foreign people to digging through American trash cans. Cultural anthropologists are currently in great demand by international corporations and the Armed Forces.

'''Archaeology''' studies the material remains of cultures. There are many subfields within arcaheology. Most archaeologists are involved in academia, studying a specific culture or culture area's past. There are also many applied archaeologists who work for contractor companies or the government to preserve archaeological sites around the world.

'''Linguistic anthropology''' studies languages and their development. This is a relatively new field.

'''Physical anthropology''' studies non-human primates--chimpanzees, monkeys, etc. In many ways it is more akin to biology than to traditional anthropology. Much of its focus is on the musculature, skeletal structure, and neurology of primates.

Talk:Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-15T14:55:53Z

Gasmonkey:

Talk:Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-15T14:53:14Z

Gasmonkey: /* Do liberals encourage sin? */

Bubonic plague

2007-03-15T14:46:19Z

Gasmonkey: Seriously??? Bigoted piece of filth

An epidemic of the bubonic plague known as the [[Black Death]] struck Europe and many parts of Asia between 1347 and 1351. The plague was spread by rats and other rodents, and spread rapidly along trade routes and especially the Silk Road. It originated amongst the Mongols in Asia, who carelessly allowed their sacks of food to be exposed to rats and fleas that carried the fatal disease. Traders brought it with them into the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. In four short years, 40 to 45% of the European population was lost to the plague, especially the poor. The Mongols amplified the problem by using catapults to toss plague-ridden bodies over city walls. The modern world is not the first to use biological warfare.

The fatality rate was even higher in China, where an estimated 25 million died from it. It took 100 years for Europe and China to recover, and a longer period of time for Islamic countries and the Middle East. Egypt was hit particularly hard, with some areas not recovering for 500 years.

The germ theory of disease had not been discovered, so nobody could figure out what was causing people to catch and die from the disease. How do you know if you have the disease? Here are the symptoms. Three to seven days after an infection, the person experiences initial symptoms of chills, fever, diarrhea, headaches, and the swelling of the infected lymph nodes. If it is untreated, 30-75% of those who contract the plague die.

The plague weakened the Catholic Church, which appeared helpless to stop it. After the plague began to subside in the 1350s, there were severe worker shortages and even rebellions as workers demanded higher pay. The devastation to the serf population weakened the force behind the success of the manors and contributed greatly to the end of feudalism. The plague also created a demand for more centralized government that could respond effectively to disease.

Nuclear weapon

2007-03-15T13:59:54Z

Gasmonkey:

A nuclear bomb is a bomb with a nuclear component, that causes an uncontrolled fission reaction releasing massive amounts of thermal and radioactive energy. Nulear weapons come are capable of massive destruction due to the combined effects of the thermal radiation and blast wave created by the detonation. Radiation is actually a by-product of the weapon, not the primary destrutive force.

The following countries are known to posses nuclear weapons.

1. United States
2. Former Soviet Republics
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. China
6. India
7. Pakistan
8. North Korea
9. Israel

The following countries are suspected of having active nuclear programs:

1. Iran
2. Saudi Arabia

The following countries are known to have once had nuclear weapons:
1. South Africa (dismantled stockpile in 1990's)
2. Belarus
3. Ukraine
4. Khazakhstan

Many other countries have at one time had an active nuclear weapons development program, but most have officially stopped research into weaponization. Any country with nuclear power capability also has the means to produce nuclear weapons.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/index.html
IAEA.org

Nuclear weapon

2007-03-15T13:40:35Z

Gasmonkey: Nuclear bomb moved to Nuclear weapons: Clearer this way.

Talk:Nuclear weapon

2007-03-15T13:40:35Z

Gasmonkey: Talk:Nuclear bomb moved to Talk:Nuclear weapons: Clearer this way.

How about we try to keep this article on information directly related to nuclear weapons? Put the stuff on Iran possibly having a nuke on the Iran page or the Iraq war page, unless you put up a list of all the countries that have the them. -gasmonkey

Need citation for list, and a complete and accurate list. Facts, not conjecture.

OK. Thakns.

That list wasn't accurate? Who else has nuclear bombs? Why don't you add them instead of deleting? -ray
:The countries may have nuclear weapons, not necessarily nuclear bombs though. Furthermore, there is no proof that North Korea has usable nuclear weapons. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the differense between nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons? Didn't North Korea test them?
:Nuclear bombs are just that. Bombs. Nuclear weapons can include missiles, bombs, etc. North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon, but the results measured under 1 kiloton, thus it's highly doubted that North Korea possesses working nuclear weapons. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm. Wouldn't it be the opposite then that many countries have nuclear bombs but fewer have nuclear weapons? And what country has a nuclear bomb, but not a nuclear weapons. I am confused.
:You can't have a nuclear bomb without having a nuclear weapon. A bomb is a weapon. Thus a nuclear bomb is a nuclear weapon. I never said a country could have a nuclear bomb but not a nuclear weapon. That is logically impossible.

OK, I am still confused. But that is o.k. you are obviously the expert.

Nuclear bomb

2007-03-15T13:40:35Z

Gasmonkey: Nuclear bomb moved to Nuclear weapons: Clearer this way.

#REDIRECT [[Nuclear weapons]]

Talk:Nuclear bomb

2007-03-15T13:40:35Z

Gasmonkey: Talk:Nuclear bomb moved to Talk:Nuclear weapons: Clearer this way.

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Nuclear weapons]]

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-15T13:24:26Z

Gasmonkey: /* Neither */

If Jesus was alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>

Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Racism

2007-03-15T13:07:34Z

Gasmonkey:

Racism is the process of making judgments based on race. More precisly, racism is the institutionalization of bigotry. Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions, and then making such generalizations part of society. An example is notions of black inferiority being manifested in the form of Jim Crowe laws. As of recent, racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the equal protection clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Talk:African Americans

2007-03-15T13:03:39Z

Gasmonkey:

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

Talk:African Americans

2007-03-15T12:58:44Z

Gasmonkey:

Talk:Homo sapiens

2007-03-15T12:47:38Z

Gasmonkey:

== Creationist View? ==

Can we add the creationist view on "Homo Sapiens?"
:Yes, but keep it neutral.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Antarctica ==

There are permanent bases on Antarctica. Wouldn't that mean we inhabit all seven continents? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really according to most geographers I have talked to. Usually inhabiting means having people living there all thi time in the form of family units, towns, cities and the like.
-Gasmonkey

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-03-15T12:37:51Z

Gasmonkey:

Environmentalist

2007-03-15T12:36:09Z

Gasmonkey: Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate.

'''Environmentalists''' are people who attempt to protect the safety and security of the environment.
Many environmentalists support a program of reducing usage of power and meterials, and the reusing and recycling of waste. Enviromentalists are concerned about protecting and preserving the natural resources of this country and the world.

American Indians

2007-03-15T12:32:36Z

Gasmonkey:

Collective name for those people living in North and South America before the coming of Europeans. Current anthropological and historical models have the first Native Americans crossing the Bering land bridge between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers from Asia migrated south to eventually inhabit all of North and South America. Indians in the New World developed complex societies and many were sedentary agriculturalists at the time of contact with Columbus. Unfortunately, contact with Europeans led to a decrease in the Indian population due to lack of immunity to disease, intermarriage, slavery, and massacre. Native populations have been estimated to range from 8 to 18 million before contact. Since 1492, this population was estimated to have fallen by 95% before stabilizing and then reversing direction. (Thornton, 1997)

Thornton, Russell. 1987. Aboriginal North American Population and Rates of Decline, ca. 1500-1900 CE. Current Anthropology 38(2):310 -315.

Talk:6th millennium BC

2007-03-15T12:31:22Z

Gasmonkey:

Happened before God created the world if you are a young Earth Creationist. You know there are Old Earth Creationists in here.
-Gasmonkey

Prehistory

2007-03-15T12:28:32Z

Gasmonkey:

Prehistory is the term for that period of time from [[creation]] until the appearance of the [[cuneiform|first written records]]. It is based on a wide range of archaeological, biological, and cultural evidence. Prehistory is not a definite time, rather the period in any society before the use of writing.

Historians describe prehistory as the [[Stone age]] which is divided in to two parts, [[Paleolithic Age|Paleolithic]] and [[Neolithic Age|Neolithic]]. The Paleolithic age came first, when man harvested wild plants and animals for food. The Neolithic age followed the Paleolithic age. Farming became dominant during the Neolithic age. The dates of these ages are debated, but current anthropological reaearch puts the beginning of the Paleolithic at 2.5 mya, and the Neolithic starting at 10 kya. The Neolithic ended 5 kya.

See also [[Ancient History]]

Talk:Nuclear weapon

2007-03-14T20:11:07Z

Gasmonkey:

Prehistory

2007-03-14T20:03:49Z

Gasmonkey:

Prehistory is the term for that period of time prior to the [[cuneiform|first written records]]. It is based on a wide range of archaeological, biological, and cultural evidence. Prehistory is not a definite time, rather the period in any society before the use of writing.

Historians describe prehistory as the [[Stone age]] which is divided in to two parts, [[Paleolithic Age|Paleolithic]] and [[Neolithic Age|Neolithic]]. The Paleolithic age came first, when man harvested wild plants and animals for food. The Neolithic age followed the Paleolithic age. Farming became dominant during the Neolithic age. The dates of these ages are debated.