Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Britain and morality

2011-10-17T23:34:53Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Bestiality and godless Britain */ Again, nothing indicates that Britain is being studied, why would a swede newspaper do an article about Britain bestiality when talking about sweden

[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Britain|British]] atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] twice refused to condemn [[bestiality]] at the [[William Lane Craig]] vs. Christopher Hitchens debate.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate]</ref> See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Bestiality and Britain]] ]]
In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled ''Britain Needs God'' [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to [[London]], after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the London of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning" [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote:
{{cquote|Few will have missed the shocking reports of the riots seen recently throughout [[England]]. Gangs of young adults and teenagers have been on the rampage, smashing windows, looting shops, and burning cars and warehouses. Even large deployments of police have been unable to contain them.

Many have been asking why all this is happening. Some reply that it is due to deep anger and frustration amongst youth, who feel they have no future, no possibility of getting a job and no stake in society. Others claim it is simply rebellion against authority and wanton criminality. Conservatives point to the disruption of family life, the promotion of single motherhood, the lack of discipline in schools and the ‘rights culture’. Liberals blame the lack of equality in society and say the answer lies in providing the young with more opportunities and better education. While there is some truth in all these views, they all fail to address the deeper issues and the true root cause of Britain’s moral and social decline.

What is happening in England is the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting [[God]] and His [[Word]]. Instead of believing what God has said, people readily believe the modern academics and politicians, who assure us that the [[Bible]] is no more than a [http://creation.com/genesis-myth-or-history book of myths] and that we can forge a better society based on [[secularism]]. Accepting this view has led to there being no final authority, no absolute basis for [[morality]] and no clarity about who or what we are...

When I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s, the Christian thinking and values of previous generations were still evident. General behaviour, truthfulness and respect were still considered more important than academic or material success. This was based on the view that we were made in the image of God, and good character was necessary to preserve this...

In contrast to all this, much of today’s educational system places little if any value on such biblical ideas. This is not surprising; if even many church leaders claim Genesis is not real history, then original sin is but a myth. In fact, it is quite likely that the ‘progressive’ educationist will take a different view simply because they think that, if the Bible teaches something, it is probably wrong. The teachers know that they themselves lie, and the head teacher lies—so why should they expect their pupils not to lie? Indeed, a recent New Scientist article actually argued, from an [[evolution|evolutionary]] standpoint, that [http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy lying in our personal, professional and social lives is a strategy for survival!] The objective of education is no longer to equip young people to serve in the community, but to maximize their ‘potential for self-fulfillment’. The great heroes of the modern age are not those who have sacrificially given themselves for others, but those who have fought for themselves and their ‘rights’. Humanists, in defiance of the true history in Genesis 3, assert the doctrine of the intrinsic goodness of humanity and see no need to teach right and wrong.<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>}}

In August of 2011, the ''[[Baptist]] Bulletin'' reported:
{{cquote|Well-known columnist [[Cal Thomas]] has come out remarking that the recent race riots in Britain are indicative of tremendous spiritual problems, reports WORLDmag.com. Said Thomas: “Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] recalled Parliament from its summer session to discuss the situation and to present a ‘united’ front. But that, along with condemnations ‘in the strongest terms,’ won’t address the real problem, which many Britons may not wish to confront. The problem in Britain, and increasingly in America, is moral and spiritual, not economic and political. British history and values are no longer being adequately taught in the UK for fear a sense of super-nationalism might be conveyed. This at a time when no nation is to be considered superior to any other, a view expressed by President Obama. According to a 2007 research report on church attendance in the UK from Tearfund, a UK Christian relief and development agency, just ’15 percent of UK adults go to church at least once a month.’ BBC News reports that according to a 2001 Census survey, ‘a fifth of children are in lone-parent families . . . 91 percent of these families headed by mother’ and there is ‘a minority of married couples for the first time—45 percent of the population versus 64 percent in 1981.’ So when the government calls on parents to be more vigilant about the whereabouts of their teenagers, the likelihood there are enough stable two-parent households who care enough to do so is not encouraging.<ref>[http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=17677 Cause of Britain’s Race Riots “Moral and Spiritual”]</ref>}}

== Sexual immorality/diseases and the UK ==

In August of 2010, it was reported by that there was sharp increase in sexually transmitted infections in [[United Kingdom]] with almost half a million new cases last year.<ref> [http://www.thefamilygp.com/Sharp-rise-in-sexually-transmitted-diseases-in-the-UK.htm Sharp increase in sexually transmitted infections in UK]</ref>

=== British atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens on bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

[[Christopher Hitchens]] is one of the principal leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement. At the end of the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[William Lane Craig]] vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was a audience question and answer period.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU VIDEO] The first audience member to ask a question twice asked [[Christopher Hitchens]] to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate]</ref> Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: [[Atheism and morality]]).<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate] </ref>

=== UK TV regulators and bestiality ===

On May 26, 2005, [[LifeSiteNews]] reported:
{{cquote|Richard Hooper, deputy chairman of Ofcom (the UK’s TV and radio regulating body), has indicated that the long-anticipated new broadcasting code makes no definite provisions against the broadcasting of so-called ‘challenging material’ on public air-waves, including shows which deal with sex with animals, so long as it is in the proper ‘context’.

“A programme about sex with animals? Yes, it’s potentially possible,” said Ofcom deputy chairman, Richard Hooper. “It all comes down to context.” Mr. Hooper may have been thinking of a channel 4 documentary on bestiality, Animal Passions, which was aired last year. According to a Media Guardian article that particular documentary received seventy-five complaints at the time, from viewers who were concerned that it “normalized bestiality”.

Mr. Hooper’s statement serves to confirm what pro-family activists have long prophesied. That is, this new age of sexual libertarianism, which, amongst other things, allows for and normalizes homosexuality, will quickly become an age of ‘no-holds-barred’ in regards to sexual deviation unless a return to a proper understanding of sexuality is initiated.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-tv-regulators-ok-bestiality UK TV Regulators OK Bestiality - LifeSiteNews - May 26, 2005]</ref>}}

=== Publicly displayed bestiality artwork expected to fetch a price of around £30,000 in Britain ===
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.<ref>The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz''</ref>]]
In August of 2011 the British newspaper the Daily Mail ran a story entitled ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz'' which declared:
{{cquote|An exclusive art gallery has been criticised for displaying a highly offensive painting just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.

Hotel guests were said to have been disgusted after seeing the image by the late British artist Robert Lenkiewicz – which depicts bestiality with a goat.

It was displayed on a revolving plinth in the front window of the Clarendon Fine Art gallery, around the corner from the five-star hotel in Piccadilly.

The picture – which is owned by a private collector and is expected to sell for around £30,000 – was still on display yesterday, although last night the gallery said it had been removed.
<ref>The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz''</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and morality]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Bestiality]]

Ken - you are either a brilliant parodist or one sick guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sweden

2011-10-10T20:55:08Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Libertine Sweden */

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 44 year old [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and orthography. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

====Christianity in Sweden====
[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

== Sexual immoraiity and Sweden ==
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In recent years Sweden appears to have faced a growing problem with [[bestiality]].<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406 ''Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden'']</ref><ref>[http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece Swedes have more and more animal sex]</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]] and

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website ''The Local'' reported in an article entitled ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'':
{{cquote|[[Gonorrhea|Gonorrhoea]] and [[syphilis]] are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/33616/20110506/ ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'']</ref>}}

=== Libertine Sweden ===

In November 0f 2008, the [[UK]] newspaper ''The Times'' reported:
{{cquote|Sweden has had a pioneering approach towards sex, at least since the 1960s when critically acclaimed films such as I am Curious Yellow depicted the society's free-wheeling attitudes. The country was one of the first to shed the stigma of single motherhood and, while Swedes talk less about sexual matters nowadays than 30 years ago, they are still pushing back the boundaries. Pharmacies, for example, have just been authorised to sell female sex toys across the counter. Legal limits are set mainly on the commercial exploitation of sex: thus, while prostitution is technically legal, customers are seen as offenders who exploit and abuse women. Cameras have been set up near the entrances of brothels and clients leaving the premises can be fined on the spot.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality - The Times - November 12, 2008]</ref>}}

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

Sweden

2011-10-10T20:52:22Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Sexual immoraiity and Sweden */ Again, this appears to be author's un-warranted ideas about prevalance of bestiality...this hardly represents a cultural trend

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 44 year old [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and orthography. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

====Christianity in Sweden====
[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

== Sexual immoraiity and Sweden ==
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In recent years Sweden appears to have faced a growing problem with [[bestiality]].<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406 ''Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden'']</ref><ref>[http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece Swedes have more and more animal sex]</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]] and

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website ''The Local'' reported in an article entitled ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'':
{{cquote|[[Gonorrhea|Gonorrhoea]] and [[syphilis]] are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/33616/20110506/ ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'']</ref>}}

=== Libertine Sweden ===

In November 0f 2008, the [[UK]] newspaper ''The Times'' reported:
{{cquote|Sweden has had a pioneering approach towards sex, at least since the 1960s when critically acclaimed films such as I am Curious Yellow depicted the society's free-wheeling attitudes. The country was one of the first to shed the stigma of single motherhood and, while Swedes talk less about sexual matters nowadays than 30 years ago, they are still pushing back the boundaries. Pharmacies, for example, have just been authorised to sell female sex toys across the counter. Legal limits are set mainly on the commercial exploitation of sex: thus, while prostitution is technically legal, customers are seen as offenders who exploit and abuse women. Cameras have been set up near the entrances of brothels and clients leaving the premises can be fined on the spot.

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

Amalekites

2011-10-10T19:01:18Z

GiveMeLiberty: Undo revision 926287 by HarryPrice (talk) Depends on translation, let's compromise

The [[Amalekites]] were a people or nation in the Bible.

After the Amalekites attacked the [[Israelites]], the LORD commanded [[Moses]] to kill everyone of them (including women, children and infants). Many [[Bible]] scholars concur that the Israelites thought this to be a just act.<ref>http://bible.cc/1_samuel/15-3.htm</ref> However it remains controversial due to its genocidal nature.

Like other tribes such as the [[Edomites]], the Amalekites were named after a man, Amalek, from whom they were believed to be descended. However, they are more likely associated with the Ammonites and Canaanites. Their name is sometimes translated as "people of the valleys," but some biblical scholars do not agree with this translation.<ref>M. Weippert, Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Biblica vol. 55, 1974, 265-280, 427-433</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Amalekites

2011-10-10T18:57:22Z

GiveMeLiberty:

The [[Amalekites]] were people in the Bible.

After the Amalekites attacked the [[Israelites]], the LORD commanded [[Moses]] to kill everyone of them (including women, children and infants). Many [[Bible]] scholars concur that the Israelites thought this to be a just act.<ref>http://bible.cc/1_samuel/15-3.htm</ref> However it remains controversial due to its genocidal nature.

Like other tribes such as the [[Edomites]], the Amalekites were named after a man, Amalek, from whom they were believed to be descended. However, they are more likely associated with the Ammonites and Canaanites. Their name is sometimes translated as "people of the valleys," but some biblical scholars do not agree with this translation.<ref>M. Weippert, Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Biblica vol. 55, 1974, 265-280, 427-433</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Amalekites

2011-10-10T18:56:28Z

GiveMeLiberty:

The [[Amalekites]] were a nation in the Bible.

After the Amalekites attacked the [[Israelites]], the LORD commanded [[Moses]] to kill everyone of them (including women, children and infants). Many [[Bible]] scholars concur that the Israelites thought this to be a just act.<ref>http://bible.cc/1_samuel/15-3.htm</ref> However it remains controversial due to its genocidal nature.

Like other tribes such as the [[Edomites]], the Amalekites were named after a man, Amalek, from whom they were believed to be descended. However, they are more likely associated with the Ammonites and Canaanites. Their name is sometimes translated as "people of the valleys," but some biblical scholars do not agree with this translation.<ref>M. Weippert, Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Biblica vol. 55, 1974, 265-280, 427-433</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Sweden

2011-10-10T18:55:32Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Bestiality and atheistic Sweden */ Is this really culturally significant enough for the country's article?

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 44 year old [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and orthography. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

====Christianity in Sweden====
[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

France

2011-10-10T18:53:11Z

GiveMeLiberty:

{{Country
|map =France rel94.JPG
|name =''République Française''
|map2 =France location.png
|flag =Flag of France.png
|arms =Armoirie France.png
|capital =Paris
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic
|government-raw =
|language =French
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Nicolas Sarkozy
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =François Fillon
|pm-raw =
|area =260,558 sq mi
|pop =65 026 885 (2011)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$2.555 trillion (2010)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$40 591 (2010)
|currency =euro
}}
'''France''' (Official title: ''République Française'', the ''French Republic'') is a major country in Western [[Europe]]. One of the oldest countries in Europe, France has played a significant role in world events since the era of Cardinal Richelieu in the mid-17th century and beyond.

==Geography==
[[File:Harbour of Marseille France.jpg|thumb|left|120px|The Harbour of Marseille.]]
*Total area: 674,843 sq. km. (260,558 sq. mi.); largest Western European country, about the size of [[Texas]].
*Cities: Capital (and largest city)--[[Paris]]. Major cities--[[Marseille]], [[Lyon]], [[Toulouse]], [[Strasbourg]], [[Nice]], [[Rennes]], [[Lille]], [[Bordeaux]].
*Terrain: Varied.
*Climate: Temperate.
*Population : 63 136 180 (January 2011 INSEE est.) excluding overseas territories.

 
 

==History==
See [[History of France]]

==People==
Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and migration. Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Traditionally, France has had a high level of [[immigration]]. More than 1 million [[Muslims]] immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from [[North Africa]], especially [[Algeria]]; their numbers are now above 5 million (2004 figure).

===Education===
[[File:Pascal by Augustin Pajou Louvre PD WC.jpg|thumb|Sculpture of [[Blaise Pascal]] by Augustin Pajou, Le Louvre.]]
Education is free, beginning at age 3 (sometimes 2), and mandatory between ages 6 and 16. The [[public education]] system is highly centralized. Private schools are primarily Roman Catholic, with some of them still run by religious orders historically involved in the French educational system. Almost all schools welcome students from all denominations.

In France, teachers abide by the state-chosen educational program, with the science curriculum based on [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin’s]] [[Theory of Evolution]]. [[Creationism]] can be referenced for cultural and philosophical values.
[[Image:Gtr7564.jpg|left|150px|thumb|[[René Descartes]], French philosopher & scientist]]
====Higher education====
Higher education in France began with the founding of the [[University of Paris]] in 1150. It now consists of 91 public universities and 175 professional schools, including the post-graduate Grandes Ecoles. Private, college-level institutions focusing on business and management with curricula structured on the American system of credits and semesters have been growing in recent years.

France has an elaborately stratified system of higher education; nearly all schools are controlled and funded by the government. There are few private foundations or endowments, but some research money comes from American foundations. Most scholars and scientists at all levels are civil servants with lifetime tenure. Rigid hierarchies ensure that young researchers pay their dues before moving up the ladder to supervisory roles. Paris decides what areas of research are high priorities, which laboratories will be “centers of excellence,” and how many people will be hired in what fields. It also classifies France’s top educational and research institutions as ''grands organismes'', ''grands établissements'', and ''grandes écoles'', with bureaucratic strictures ensuring that there will be little contact between the different groups.<ref> Fred Schwarz, "The Uncertainty Principle: America dominates science with a classic American formula: freedom," ''National Review'', Dec. 21, 2009 </ref>

===Language===
The French language derives from the vernacular Latin spoken by the Romans in [[Gaul]], although it includes some Celtic and Germanic words. Historically, French has been used as the international language of diplomacy and commerce. Today it remains one of six official languages at the [[United Nations]] and has been a unifying factor in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean.
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|thumb|Le Sacre Coeur.]]
The French language is controlled by the French Academy (''L'Académie française''). As Members of the Academy are appointed for life and this results in a very conservative approach to the changing demands on the language even going as far as banning words with an English origin. The French people (and other French speakers) often ignore the "correct" French and adopt modern English words. This can cause an even wider gap opening up between the cultural elite, who prefer to follow the official French even if it is many years and even decades out of date, and ordinary French speakers who prefer to have a more useful language. There have even been arguments between the government and the Academy over the introduction of "foreign" French words from countries like Belgium and Canada which the government is keen to use. Some even say that this painfully slow and traditional organization is strangling the French language.

===Religion===

The French state is non-religious - it has no sanctioned religion and is forbidden to do so by law, a practice which commonly referred to as ''laicité''. Since the beginning of the 20th century, state banning of religion in education and other state-funded activities created a large proportion of people who are atheists. It was common for teachers to preach atheism at schools and classroom prayer was forbidden.
[[File:Notre-dame.jpg|thumb|left|125px|Notre Dame.]][[File:La Mosquée de Paris.jpg|thumb|left|125px|La Mosquée de Paris.]]
[[File:Muslims in Europe map.jpg|thumb|290px|Muslims in Europe by country.]]
In a January 2007 poll, 51% percent of respondents indicated they were Roman Catholic, including those who never attend religious services. Of Catholics, only 10% went to Church regularly--mainly to Sunday Mass or christenings. There is a cultural particularism in France : a large percentage (30%) of people, calling themselves Catholics, don't believe in God, nor in any kind of spiritual lifeforce. They endorse Catholicism moral teachings, and view Catholic dogma as a tradition. There are an estimated 5 million to 6 million Muslims (8 to 10% of the population), although estimates of how many of these are practicing vary widely. According to a January 17, 2008 survey in the Catholic daily ''La Croix,'' 39% of Muslims surveyed said they observed Islam's five prayers daily, an increase from 31% in 1994. Mosque attendance for Friday prayers rose to 23%, up from 16 percent in 1994, while Ramadan observance reached 70% compared to 60% in 1994. Drinking alcohol, which Islam forbids, also declined to 34% from 39% in 1994.<ref> Data reported by [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108446.htm U.S. State Department, 2008]</ref>
Protestants make up 3% of the population, Jewish and Buddhist religious groups 1% each, and Sikhs less than 1 percent.

In April 2008 a practicing Buddhist claimed the current estimate of 600,000 Buddhists strongly underrepresents the actual number of adherents; however, he acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing between practicing Buddhists and the much larger number of persons who characterize themselves as sympathetic to certain Buddhist principles. Scholars distinguish between "sympathizers" (approximately 5 million), "associates" (defined as having a certain degree of proximity to Buddhism and estimated to number between 100,000 and 150,000), and "practitioners" (approximately 12,000). The biggest Buddhist meditation center in the West is in the region of Touraine, and two Tibetan monasteries in the Auvergne region have trained the largest number of Buddhist monks outside Asia, according to 2002 statistical data.

The Jewish community numbers approximately 600,000. According to press reports, at least 60% of Jews are not highly observant, celebrating at most only the High Holy Days. The large majority of observant Jews are Orthodox. There are small Conservative and Reform congregations as well.

Jehovah's Witnesses reported that 250,000 persons attend their services either regularly or periodically.

Orthodox Christians number between 80,000 and 100,000; the vast majority are associated with the Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches.

Other religious groups include Evangelicals, Christian Scientists, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Membership in evangelical churches is growing (with as many as 400,000 adherents, according to February 2007 press reports), including African-style "prosperity" churches, especially in the suburbs of Paris, in large part because of increased participation by African and Antillean immigrants. According to the press, there are approximately 31,000 Mormons. The Church of Scientology has an estimated 5,000 to 20,000 members.

==Government==
[[File:Delacroix La liberte guidant le peuple.jpg|thumb|300px|Commemorating the July Revolution of 1830: [[Eugene Delacroix]], ''La liberte guidant le peuple''.]]
The constitution of the Fifth Republic was approved by public referendum on September 28, 1958. It greatly strengthened the powers of the president in relation to those of Parliament. Under this constitution, presidents have been elected directly for a 7-year term since 1958. Beginning in 2002, the presidential term of office was reduced to 5 years. The president names the prime minister, presides over the cabinet, commands the armed forces, and concludes treaties. Traditionally, presidents under the Fifth Republic have tended to leave day-to-day policy-making to the Prime Minister and government; the five-year term of office is expected to make presidents more accountable for the results of domestic policies.

The president can submit questions to a national referendum and can dissolve the National Assembly. In certain emergency situations, with the approval of parliament, the president may assume [[dictator]]ial powers and rule by decree. The main components of France's executive branch are the president, the prime minister and government, and the permanent bureaucracies of the many ministries. Led by a prime minister, who is the head of government, the cabinet is composed of a varying number of ministers, ministers-delegate, and secretaries of state. Parliament meets for one 9-[[month]] session each year. Under special circumstances the president can call an additional session.

Under the Constitution, the legislative branch has few checks on executive power; nevertheless, the National Assembly can still cause a government to fall if an absolute majority of the total Assembly membership votes to censure. The Parliament is [[bicameral]] with a National Assembly and a Senate. The National Assembly is the principal legislative body. Its deputies are directly elected to 5-year terms, and all seats are voted on in each election. Senators are chosen by an electoral college and, under new rules passed in 2003 to shorten the term, serve for six years, with one-half of the Senate being renewed every three years. (As a transitional measure in 2004, 62 Senators were elected to 9-year terms, while 61 were elected to 6-year terms; subsequently, all terms will be six years.) The Senate's legislative powers are limited; the National Assembly has the last word in the event of a disagreement between the two houses. The government has a strong influence in shaping the agenda of Parliament. The government also can declare a bill to be a question of confidence, thereby linking its continued existence to the passage of the legislative text; unless a motion of censure is introduced and voted, the text is considered adopted without a vote.

A distinctive feature of the French judicial system is that the Constitutional Council protects basic rights when they might be potentially violated by new laws and the Council of State protects basic rights when they might be violated by actions of the state. The Constitutional Council examines legislation and decides whether it conforms to the constitution. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, it considers only legislation that is referred to it by Parliament, the prime minister, or the president. Moreover, it considers legislation before it is promulgated. The Council of State has a separate function from the Constitutional Council and provides recourse to individual citizens who have claims against the administration. The Ordinary Courts--including specialized bodies such as the police court, the criminal court, the correctional tribunal, the commercial court, and the industrial court--settle disputes that arise between citizens, as well as disputes that arise between citizens and corporations. The Court of Appeals reviews cases judged by the Ordinary Courts.

Traditionally, decision-making in France has been highly centralized, with each of France's departments headed by a prefect appointed by the central government. In 1982, the national government passed legislation to decentralize authority by giving a wide range of administrative and fiscal powers to local elected officials. In March 1986, regional councils were directly elected for the first time, and the process of decentralization continues, albeit at a slow pace.
===Principal Government Officials===
See [[List of French Presidents]].
*President--[[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
*Prime Minister--François Fillon
*Foreign Minister--Alain Juppé
*Ambassador to the United States--François Delattre
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Gérard Araud

===Political Conditions===
[[File:French Market.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Improving French Market.]]
Since his inauguration in May 2007 as France's sixth president under the Fifth Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy focused his first months in office on improving the performance of France's economy through liberalization of labor markets, higher education and taxes. In the April 22, 2007 first round of presidential elections, Sarkozy, the leader of the center-right, union for a popular Movement (UMP) party, placed first; Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal placed second; centrist François Bayrou placed third; and extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen placed fourth out of a field of 12 candidates. Sarkozy prevailed in the May 6, 2007 second round, defeating Royal by a 53.06% to 46.94% margin. Royal's loss marked the third straight defeat for the Socialist candidate in presidential elections.

President Sarkozy assumed office on May 16, 2007, the last day of Jacques Chirac's official term. Sarkozy named François Fillon Prime Minister. Jean-Louis Borloo, the second highest ranking figure in the government, presides over an expanded Ministry of Environment.. Legislative elections held on June 10 and 17, 2007 gave the UMP a large parliamentary majority. In 2007, key ministers included: Jean-Louis Borloo, Ecology and Sustainable Planning; Michèle Alliot-Marie, Interior; Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Affairs; Christine Lagarde, Economy; Brice Hortefeux, Immigration; Rachida Dati, Justice; and Hervé Morin, Defense.

In electing Nicolas Sarkozy, French voters endorsed the wide-ranging program of reforms--including market-oriented social and economic reforms--that were the focal point of Sarkozy's campaign, implicitly giving him the green light to try and implement these reforms quickly, and allowing a way forward for overcoming France's 2005 rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. By embracing a figure long tagged as "pro-American," French voters also expressed their desire to renew trust in the U.S.-France relationship. During the campaign Sarkozy often ended his stump speeches--evoking Martin Luther King--by calling for a "French dream" of social equality, social mobility, and equal opportunity; and his first speech as President-elect assured his "American friends" that they could rely on France's friendship.

Shortly after taking office, President Sarkozy went to work on a series of reforms to address mounting pressure for short- and long-term restructuring, including reduced government spending, flexibility in the implementation of the 35-hour work week, more labor-market flexibility, less taxation, and further privatization and liberalization of the business sector. French and EU analysts stress that longer-term measures must focus on reducing the future burden of ballooning public pension and health care budgets, as well as reducing labor-related taxes. Government action to initiate such reforms may have contributed to the center-right's poor showing in 2004 regional and European Parliamentary elections, and continues to spark periodic strikes and work stoppages throughout France.

It should be noted that France is, in many ways, much more left-wing and socialist than the U.S.A. Even with what the French would call a right-wing president, there are differences fundamental between the right-wing in France and America. France has a very large state and employs a near majority of the workforce directly and indirectly (like state-owned private companies). France also has a very strong welfare state and comprehensive cover for health, unemployment, pensions, etc. This is expensive and so taxes are relatively high. So while President Chirac and his successor President Sarkozy are right-wing, they are not looking to dismantle these policies even if the latter wants to make them more efficient. Compared to America, Sarkozy would be roughly equivalent to a Democrat. The Socialist Party, the opposition political party at the moment, is very strong. There is no comparison to a main American political party.

<blockquote>
During his first year and a half in office, Sarkozy eliminated income taxes on overtime hours, lengthened the contribution period for retirees to receive full pensions, and established a "minimum service" requirement on strike days, among other reforms. He also completed a major revision of the French constitution, which made the president more accountable to Parliament and strengthened the power of the legislature. French and EU analysts stress that longer-term reform measures must focus on reducing the future burden of ballooning public pension and health care budgets, as well as reducing labor-related taxes.
<ref> [http://aadorjan.com/Moin/index.cgi/Political_Structure Political Structure] </ref>
</blockquote>

The coming presidential elections in 2012 highlights the current political situation. It should be noted, that in contrary to the two party system such as in the US, French elections saw a multitude of political movements face each other . The historical right movement (UMP) lead by President Sarkozy will face several opponents. The Parti Socialiste, the main left polical party, whose candidate is currently unknown, as well as the Front National, a far right party, whose popularity is rising due to the economical stagnation, Nicolas Sarkozy's low rate of approval in recent surveys, and the focus of the government on immigration and interior security topics, which have been taken up by the far right.
Several others movements, like the ecologists, the centrists, the communists, the monarchists will present candidates, but they aren’t expected to win an important percentage of votes.

===Foreign Relations===
A charter member of the United Nations, France holds one of the permanent seats in the Security Council and is a member of most of its specialized and related agencies. France is also America's oldest ally; French military intervention was instrumental in helping Britain's American colonies establish independence. Because many battles in which the United States was involved during World War I and World War II took place in France, more American soldiers have been killed on French soil than on that of any other foreign country.
[[File:France Mexico relations.jpg|thumb|270px|A court decision has weakened Mexico-France diplomatic relations.]]
France is a leader in Western Europe because of its size, location, and large economy, membership in European organizations, strong military posture, and energetic diplomacy. France generally has worked to strengthen the global economic and political influence of the EU and its role in common European defense. It views Franco-German cooperation and the development of a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) with other EU members, as the foundation of efforts to enhance European security.

France supports Quartet (U.S.-EU-Russia-UN) efforts to implement the Middle East roadmap, which envisions establishment of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive peace agreement, France supports the involvement of all Arab parties and Israel in a multilateral peace process.

Since 2003, France has supported four UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Iraq, including UNSCR 1546, which laid out a timetable for Iraq's political transition and reaffirmed UNSC authorization for a Multinational Force in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to stabilize the country. France contributed to the 230 million euro EU contribution to Iraq reconstruction in 2003. After the Iraqi Interim Government took power, France agreed to substantial debt relief and offered police training to Iraqi security forces. In 2006, France and the U.S. collaborated closely to create a consensus in the UN to adopt UNSCR 1696 demanding action from Iran to end its enrichment-related and preprocessing activities.

France continues to play an important role in Africa, especially in its former colonies, through aid programs, commercial activities, military agreements, and cultural impact. In those former colonies where the French presence remains important, France has supported political, military, and social stability. France maintains permanent military bases in Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Senegal, and has maintained a long-term military presence in Chad. An attack on French forces in Côte d'Ivoire in 2004 led to the departure of thousands of French nationals from that country. France responded to the crisis in Côte d'Ivoire by dispatching Operation Unicorn, which has worked with UN forces to help stabilize Côte d'Ivoire. In 2011, during the conflict opposing Gbagbo and Ouattara following the presidental elections, France fully supported Ouattara. France has also deployed forces to Togo (in support of Operation Unicorn in Côte d'Ivoire) and to the Central African Republic, where French forces have assisted government forces in deterring rebel elements. France with EU partners, participated in an international military operation (EUFOR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2006, which played an important presence during in elections that year in the D.R.C. France was instrumental in organizing the June 2007 ministerial conference on Darfur and has shown leadership in increasing international interest and involvement in Chad and the Central African Republic, both of which are affected by the crisis in Darfur.

France has extensive political and commercial relations with Asian countries, including China, Japan, and Southeast Asia as well as an increasing presence in regional fora. France is seeking to broaden its commercial presence in China and will pose a competitive challenge to U.S. business, particularly in aerospace, high-tech, and luxury markets. In Southeast Asia, France was an architect of the 1991 Paris Accords, which ended the conflict in Cambodia.

===Relations with the United States===

Relations between the United States and France are active and cordial. Mutual visits by high-level officials are conducted frequently. Bilateral contact at the cabinet level has traditionally been active. France and the United States share common values and have parallel policies on most political, economic, and security issues. Differences are discussed frankly and have not generally been allowed to impair the pattern of close cooperation that characterizes relations between the two countries.
[[File:President Obama and President Sarkozy 2009.jpg|thumb|320px|President Obama and President Sarkozy, 2009.]]
France is one of NATO's top three troop contributors. The French support NATO modernization efforts and are leading contributors to the NATO Response Force (NRF). France is keen to build European defense capabilities, including through the development of EU battle-group sized force packages and joint European military production initiatives. Defense Minister Morin supports development of a European defense that must complement, not compete with, NATO, which remains at the core of transatlantic security. French resistance, however, to efforts to reinforce NATO's reach beyond the North Atlantic region remain a source of contention.

France is a close partner with the U.S. in the war on terror. It cooperates with the U.S. to monitor and disrupt terrorist groups and has processed numerous U.S. requests for information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. French security and intelligence services have rounded up hundreds of extremists in the past year. The French judiciary has upheld the pre-trial detainment of the four French former Guantanamo detainees. France is a strong partner in multiple non-proliferation fora and is a key participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Through the "EU3" (France, the U.K., and Germany), France is working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein with whom they, like other countries had close economic ties, especially in the supply of nuclear technology.Donald Rumsfeld famously quipped that "going to war without the French is like going on a duck hunt without an accordion".

Americans generally took France's refusal to join in the war very badly. Many politicians, especially Republicans, were incensed and even started campaigns to ridicule France and its military. There was even a campaign to change the name of French fries to Freedom fries. Since no weapons of mass destruction were found after the Iraq war, some have speculated that France was right all along. But many Americans still take a very negative view of the French generally and old stereotypes of rude, unwashed, horse-eating and cowardly French remain a popular vision.

Despite differences over Iraq, the U.S. and France continue to cooperate closely on many issues, most notably the global war on terrorism, efforts to stem the [[proliferation]] of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and on regional problems, including in Africa, Lebanon, and Kosovo. On Iraq, the French agreed to generous debt relief for Iraq in Paris Club negotiations and have accepted the establishment of a NATO training mission there.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France seeks robust U.S. engagement in the peace process. France is working to contain the Hamas-led challenge to the Palestinian Authority. President Sarkozy, like his predecessor, President Chirac, is committed to keeping France in supportive relations with Israel.

The U.S. and France have worked closely to support a sovereign and independent Lebanon, free of Syrian domination, having fought with uncharacteristic tenacity to keep the British out in World War II, but without success.
The U.S. and France co-sponsored in September 2004 UNSCR 1559, which called for full withdrawal of Syrian forces, a free and fair electoral process, and disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. In the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the U.S. and France reiterated calls for a full, immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops and security services from Lebanon. France also co-sponsored UNSCR 1701 and was one of the leading countries in Europe working to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 by committing 2,000 troops to UNIFIL-plus. Strong French backing led to adoption of UNSCR 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to prosecute the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination and other killings of critics of Syria's interference in Lebanon. Foreign Minister Kouchner is working hard to help competing Lebanese political factions agree to a framework for governing the country in accordance with the country's constitution and free from external interference. France also participates in the U.S. Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative.

Trade and investment between the U.S. and France are strong. On average over $1 billion in commercial transactions take place between France the U.S. every day. In 2006 U.S. exports to France totaled over 24.2 billion euros and U.S. imports from France were valued at 37.1 billion euros. France is the eighth partner for total trade of goods (imports plus exports) and the tenth-ranked supplier worldwide to the U.S. and its 10th largest customer. The U.S. is France's third-ranked supplier and its fifth largest customer. There are approximately 2,300 French subsidiaries in the U.S., providing more than 481,100 jobs and generating an estimated $178 billion turnover. U.S. companies in France employ about 603,400 French citizens. The U.S. is the top destination for French investments worldwide.

Relations at a cultural and popular level are complex. While many Americans see the French as too quick surrender in the face of military conflict, many French people view suspiciously America's willingness to go to war. There are suspicions that America will only fight to secure wealth primarily oil or its ideology of the US version of liberty with disregard for other nation's views. Americans often view French culture as being very elitist and overly reliant on the high arts while some French take exception to American "cultural imperialism" even though the French are keen consumers of American-style fast food, cinema and modern music. The French are generally proud of the donation of the Statue of Liberty but can sometimes appear ungrateful for the help America and other Allies gave in World War 2.

==Security Issues==
[[File:French July 14.jpg|right|200px]]
French military doctrine is based on the concepts of national independence, nuclear deterrence, and military sufficiency. France is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ([[NATO]]), and has worked actively with Allies to adapt NATO, internally and externally, to the post-Cold War environment. However, in 1966, the French withdrew from NATO's military bodies while remaining full participants in the alliance's political councils. In December 1995, France announced that it would increase its participation in NATO's military wing, including the Military Committee. France remains a firm supporter of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other efforts at cooperation.

Outside of NATO, France has actively and heavily participated in a variety of peacekeeping/coalition efforts in Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans, often taking the lead in these operations. France has undertaken a major restructuring to develop a professional military that will be smaller, more rapidly deployable and better tailored for operations outside of mainland France. Key elements of the restructuring include reducing personnel, bases, and headquarters and rationalizing equipment and the armament industry. French active-duty military in June 2007 numbered about 350,000 (including Gendarmes), of which nearly 34,000 were deployed outside of French territory. France completed the move to all-professional armed forces when conscription ended on December 31, 2002.
[[File:Nato - airpower.jpg|thumb|left|300px|NATO-airpower.]]
France places a high priority on arms control<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/10/151219.shtml French Arms Sales to China]</ref> and non-proliferation. After conducting a final series of six nuclear tests, the French signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. France has implemented a moratorium on the production, export, and use of anti-personnel landmines and supports negotiations leading toward a universal ban. France is an active participant in the major supplier regimes designed to restrict transfer of technologies that could lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group (for chemical and biological weapons), the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. France participates actively in the Proliferation Security Initiative, and is engaged with the U.S., both bilaterally and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to curb nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) proliferation from the D.P.R.K., Iran, Libya, and elsewhere. France has joined with the U.S., Germany, and the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council to offer a package of incentives and disincentives to Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities. France has also signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. France maintains a color-coded security system, similar to that of the U.S., consisting of yellow, orange, red and scarlet threat levels.

At least 62 French soldiers have been killed in [[Afghanistan]] during [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] since its inception in 2001.<ref>[http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/afghanistan/in-memoriam/in-memoriam In Memoriam]</ref>

==Economy==
[[File:Paris-13eme - panorama banlieues.jpg|center|Paris.]]
With a GDP of approximately $2.5 trillion, France is the sixth-largest economy. It has substantial agricultural resources, a large industrial base, and a highly skilled work force. A dynamic services sector accounts for an increasingly large share of economic activity and is responsible for nearly all job creation in recent years. GDP growth was 1.1% in 2003, after two years of steady decline from 3.9% in 2000. GDP growth was 1.7% in 2005, down from 2.5% in 2004 (2000 price basis).

Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. French unemployment dropped from a high of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s, and after hovering around 10% during the 2000s, unemployment slipped once again to 8.0% in July 2007. France joined 10 other European Union countries in adopting the euro as its currency in January 1999. Since then, monetary policy has been set by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. On January 1, 2002, France, along with the other countries of the euro zone, dropped its national currency in favor of euro bills and coins.

Despite significant reform and privatization over the past 15 years, the government continues to control a large share of economic activity: Government spending, at 53.5% of GDP in 2006, is among the highest in the G-7. Regulation of labor and product markets is pervasive. The government continues to own shares in corporations in a range of sectors, including banking, energy production and distribution, automobiles, transportation, and telecommunications.
[[File:Chenonceaux France.jpg|thumb|260px|Chenonceaux.]]
Legislation passed in 1998 shortened the legal work week from 39 to 35 hours for most employees effective January 1, 2000. Recent assessments of the impact of work week reduction on growth and jobs have generally concluded that the goal of job creation was not met. The former administration introduced increasing flexibility into the law, returning the country to a de facto (if not de jure) 39-hour work week in the private sector. Under President Nicolas Sarkozy's impetus, overtime work will be exempt from income taxes on October 1, 2007, a move to encourage work and to increase work duration.

Membership in France's labor unions accounts for approximately 5% of the private sector work force and is concentrated in the manufacturing, transportation, and heavy industry sectors. Most unions are affiliated with one of the competing national federations, the largest and most powerful of which are the communist-dominated General Labor Confederation (CGT), the Workers' Force (FO), and the French Democratic Confederation of Labor (CFDT).

France has been very successful in developing dynamic telecommunications, aerospace, and weapons sectors. With virtually no domestic oil production, France has relied heavily on the development of nuclear power, which now accounts for about 80% of the country's electricity production.

===Trade===
[[Image:French-Perfume.jpg|right|280px]]
France is the second-largest trading nation in Western Europe (after Germany). France ran a $33.7 billion deficit in 2006. Total trade for 2006 amounted to $1,013.5 billion, over 45% of GDP 75.0% of which was with EU-24 countries. In 2003, U.S.-France trade in goods and services totaled $80.3 billion. U.S. industrial chemicals, aircraft and engines, electronic components, telecommunications, computer software, computers and peripherals, analytical and scientific instrumentation, medical instruments and supplies, broadcasting equipment, and programming and franchising are particularly attractive to French importers. Total French trade of goods and services was $1,001 billion in 2006.

Principal French exports to the United States are [[aircraft]] and [[engine]]s, beverages, electrical equipment, chemicals, cosmetics, and luxury products. France is the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States.
{{Clear}}
===Agriculture===
[[File:Basque Country France.jpg|left|200px]]
France is the world's second-largest agricultural producer, after the United States. However, the destination of 70% of its exports is other EU member states. Wheat, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products are the principal exports. The United States, although the second-largest exporter to France, faces stiff competition from domestic production, other EU member states, and third countries. U.S. agricultural exports to France, totaling $464 million in 2003, consist primarily of soybeans and products, feeds and fodders, seafood, and consumer oriented products, especially snack foods and nuts. French agricultural exports to the United States are mainly cheese, processed products, and wine. They amount to about $3.327 billion (2006) annually.

France accounts for about one-third of all agricultural land within the EU. Northern France is characterized by large wheat farms. Dairy products, pork, poultry, and apple production are concentrated in the western region. Beef production is located in central France, while the production of fruits, vegetables, and wine ranges from central to southern France. France is a large producer of many agricultural products and is expanding its forestry and fishery industries. The implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Uruguay Round of the GATT Agreement resulted in reforms in the agricultural sector of the economy. Continued revision of the CAP and reforms agreed under the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) will further change French agriculture. France remains Europe's strongest opponent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and often assumes an agricultural position at the EU Council to promote this policy.

== See also ==
[[File:Boudin Trouville.jpg|thumb|300px|''Trouville'' by [[Eugene Boudin]], 1864.]]
*[[Gallery of French Masterpieces]]
*[[Famous French paintings]]
*[[French terms]]
*[[Libyan uprising 2011]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

 
{{Copyright Details (US Government)|http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

Amalekites

2011-10-10T18:47:59Z

GiveMeLiberty:

The [[Amalekites]] were a group of bandits in the Bible.

After the Amalekites attacked the [[Israelites]], the LORD commanded [[Moses]] to kill everyone of them (including women, children and infants). Many [[Bible]] scholars concur that the Israelites thought this to be a just act.<ref>http://bible.cc/1_samuel/15-3.htm</ref>

Like other tribes such as the [[Edomites]], the Amalekites were named after a man, Amalek, from whom they were believed to be descended. However, they are more likely associated with the Ammonites and Canaanites. Their name is roughly translated as "people of the hills."

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-10-10T16:35:51Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* So Conservative... */ new section

==Pro Tip==
It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) - see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, the author of the article is using the British study to estimate the amount of bestiality of Sweden. Why wouldn't the author mention that the British vet study was done outside of Britain in terms of dogs/cats if that were the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== some suggested improvements ==

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some improvements. How do you all like these edits:

'''Removed picture of Boteach as he has nothing to do with bestiality'''

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

<s>In 2011, in an article entitled ''Godless Britain'' Shmuley Boteach reported in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'':</s>
{{cquote|<s>Britain today has become one of the most godless societies on earth. Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," the British have cornered the market on being anti-God, at least the Christian and Jewish varieties.

While 92% of Americans believe in God, only 35% in Britain do and 43% say they have no religion, according to Britain's National Centre for Social Research. The number of people who affiliate themselves with the Church of England was 23% of the population in 2009 from 40% in 1983. In truth though, if Britain's Christian tradition is dying out, the leaders of the faith have only themselves to blame, for perpetuating the country's highly centralized religious structure.</s>[1]}} '''(nothing whatever to do with Bestiality)'''

<s>On April 26, 2001, in an article entitled ''Swedes have more and more animal sex'' the Swedish news website Nettavision reported:</s>
{{cquote|<s>No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault.</s>[2]}} '''Unfortunately this has nothing to do with Britain'''

See also:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

----
;Bible on bestiality and study on bestiality

<s>The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).</s> '''Nothing to do with Britain'''

<s>A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[3] The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.</s>[4] 
'''Nothing to do with Britain'''
{{unsigned|DamianJohn}}

== This page should be deleted... ==

There is no evidence whatsoever. Whom is the British study referring to? I would guess since the article is about Sweden it is referring to Swedes, but since the distinction isn't made, you can't know whom the study is referring to. In light of this, there is no link b/w Brits and bestiality presented. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 12:14, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::The study WAS conducted in the UK, but it only dealt with abused animals - deliberate injuries - not all injured animals. 6% of ABUSE cases were SUSPECTED to be sexual in nature. The total was 28 cases in one year. More details [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb02468.x/abstract here]. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Probably should be mentioned in article ==

Bestiality is illegal in the United Kingdom. See [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3675057.stm here]. Did you know that only 32 states here in America have laws banning bestiality? It appears that many have banned it under animal rights codes, rather than because of morality. Also, [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631220800Sample/Reis9780631220800.pdf here's] an interesting paper about bestiality in early America. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I am guessing that illegality affects rates of bestiality, but [[Washington state and bestiality]] shows that immoral people do ignore laws. The war on drugs in the United States has not been very effective for example because laws and attempted enforcement of those laws often can only do so much. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== And it's back... ==

So you're saying b/c ONE brit had sex with an animal, ONE artist painted a painting (and a few were dumb enough to buy it), and they showed a documentary on the subject, the whole nation is one big animal sodomizing dystopia? This is ridiculous and offensive. User:Conservative, you should at the very least lift the protection or move this to essays as this in no way represents any version of reality except your own. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 09:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'm British, and my sex life has certainly gone to the dogs. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:14, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Prevalence of bestiality in atheists and theists ==

I do wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that atheists are more likely to commit bestiality than Christians. [http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2011/04/priest-accused-of-bestiality.html THIS] suggests that it's not entirely unknown for Christian clergy to get a little bit too fond of man's best friend. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:And [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news13/2005_02_07_DallasMorningNews_RockwallPriest_William_Richard_2.htm here] is another example. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:37, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::[http://www.todaysthv.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=175199 THIS] case deals with the founder of a bible college, so probably not an atheist. The article talks about child pornography but other sources suggest that bestiality porn was also involved. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:44, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::And a case from [http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Horror-upon-horror-that-unfolded.5247628.jp Britain], although not Godless Britain - a regular churchgoer jailed for child molesting and owning bestiality porn. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:48, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::A church deacon from Virginia gets [http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/chesapeake-man-gets-22-years-child-sex-solicitation-conviction 22 years in jail] for possession of child and bestiality porn... --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:51, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::GuntheR, I expect with the paltry evidence you have offered so far, you are probably going to be wondering for a long time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::What evidence have YOU offered that bestiality is more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? That would be none, right? --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:58, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Also, speaking as a conservative Bible believing Protestant, I cannot say I am very impressed with your paltry evidence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Where is YOUR evidence for bestiality being more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? I don't believe you've actually produced any, have you? --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 19:07, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== So Conservative... ==

If you are going to treat this article as your own personal essay, shouldn't it be labeled as such? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 12:35, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Nihilism

2011-10-10T01:33:31Z

GiveMeLiberty: No, no, no, he argued that ultimately these things LEAD to nihilism and these disasters, he was NOT pro-religious

'''Nihilism''' (IPA pronunciation: "ˈnaɪ.əlɪzəm") is the belief in nothing, an extreme form of [[atheism]]. A true nihilist would have no loyalties, and no purpose. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] argued that [[morality|moral]], [[religion|religious]], and metaphysical convictions lead to nihilism's corrosive effects; cause the collapse of meaning, relevance, purpose, and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref> An example of nihilism would be the question reportedly posed by [[Jared Loughner]] to a congresswoman whom he allegedly later shot:<ref>http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1</ref>

{{cquote|What is government if words have no meaning?}}

German political philosopher [[Leo Strauss]] argued that modern [[liberal]]ism has within it a tendency towards nihilism. [[Faith]] in God is the opposite of nihilism. In government and politics, another example of the opposite of nihilism is the concept of [[natural rights]], as formulated in the [[Declaration of Independence]].

Major types of nihilism include:
*'''epistemological nihilism''' which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is identified with [[postmodernism]]. One famous example of epistemological nihilism is the words [[Socrates]] said before his death: "''I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.''"
*'''Political Nihilism''' is the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement; this form of nihilism is identified with [[anarchism]].
*'''Moral nihilism''' rejects all moral or ethical values; this form of nihilism is identified with [[moral relativity|moral relativism]].{{fact}}
*'''Existential nihilism''' is the notion that life has no meaning or purpose.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref>
*'''Mereological nihilism''' is the view that objects with parts do not exist, it's a human illusion; this view has been identified with some aspects of [[Buddhist philosophy]] and [[Immanuel Kant]]'s [[transcendental idealism]].

In his book, ''The Decline of the West'', German philosopher Oswald Spengler observes that pattern of nihilism was a feature shared by all civilizations on the verge of collapse.

==Beyond Nihilism==
Friedrich Nietzsche saw two kinds of nihilism in the world; pessimistic and joyous. Pessimistic nihilism was that created by the death of God in the minds of men, and corresponds to the idea that life is without meaning or value. Joyous nihilism was that experienced by those few who, like him, experienced the loss of an externally created and imposed moral structure as a liberation and not a great loss, and was the seed that let the herald Nietzsche proclaim the coming of the Übermensch.
What Nietzsche truly meant by this is much debated even today, and Nietzsche himself would be disgusted with moral relativists.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==

*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (look under "New Liberal Terms")
*[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/070307 Liberalism and the two roads to nihilism: how liberalism can collapse into nihilism through materialism or false idealism] by Fred Hutchison, March 7, 2007.

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Anarchists]]

Talk:Liberalism and bestiality

2011-10-08T14:00:41Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Ok... */

==Wow, it's going better and better==
70 articles talking about bestiality, and 7 with bestiality in the title! 

Must be the bestiality-expert encyclopedia ! Why not rename it bestialopedia ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:43, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't know about the figures you allege, but Conservapedia has over [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics 37,000 content pages according to the MediaWiki software.] Generally speaking, liberals tend to whine and bellyache about the ones which offer information that show the folly and depravity of liberalism. Of course, the articles in question are no exception to this rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== "All liberals are atheists" ==

I did not know this </sarcasm>. Please don't blindly follow Ann Coulter. Just because a majority appears a certain way, doesn't mean you can group them all into one conglomerate. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. [http://conservapedia.com/Template_talk:Examples_of_Liberal_Bias#Athiests.3F Aschlafly agrees that not all liberals are atheists]. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheism and Liberalism aren't like rectangles and squares, because while it is true that not all liberals are atheists, the same is true the other way around. My best friend from grade school was an atheist with many conservative positions, such as being against Gun Control, liberal taxes, and being anti-abortion. --[[User:SpenserL|SpenserL]] 00:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:You are employing the [[Fallacy of exclusion]] because you are not mentioning the Princeton information. Also, in case you are not aware: Harvard, Princeton and Yale are often considered the 3 top academic schools in America and they also have a liberal bent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:25, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::In addition, all the European countries I cited are liberal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:44, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

== "...in wake of homosexual marriage being legalized in France." ==

Homosexual marriage is illegal in France. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 19:40, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
:Fixed today. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ok... ==

''Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia)''

Who cares what position Larry Singer hold? The first line includes a bunch of information that is nothing but a guilt by association fallacy, something I've noticed a lot of in Conservapedia. So, one member of a group believes this, this, this, and this. SO WHAT? That's one individual, not necessarily true of every person who belongs to said groups. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 21:01, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
:::You should apply your "high powered" SO WHAT? to your post. I certainly didn't find it compelling. Princeton is an elite liberal university. There was no outcry from academia or the liberal community concerning Singer's views. In fact, his views seem to have been rewarded. I haven't studied the whole women/math issue but I can tell you that Larry Summers got a lot of flack from liberals/academia concerning his women/math comment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:17, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Plus, you are engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and not addressing all the information I offered including the internet links to other articles. In short, I am not at all impressed with your post. It is a big SO WHAT. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:18, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You included links to other articles that have no relevance. So Mr. Singer holds these particular views. Ok, does that mean all such people hold these views? Can you prove that all such people hold these views? Can you identify a pattern beyond your own ideas about what Princeton sees as Mr. Singer's views? If not, you are committing a guilt by association fallacy. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 09:04, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Please explain for each internal link why it has no relevance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ok...he defends abortion, do all pro-abortionist people defend this position? If not, then why does it matter? The same for euthanasia. As for infanticide, saying he is for it is a little misleading IMO, he merely states that babies are incapable of rational thought and autonomy, I don't think he actually advocates killing them. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 10:00, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-10-08T13:13:59Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Probably should be mentioned in article */

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-10-08T13:13:32Z

GiveMeLiberty:

Talk:Liberalism and bestiality

2011-10-08T13:04:12Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Ok... */

Talk:Liberalism and bestiality

2011-10-08T01:01:04Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Ok... */ new section

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-10-07T16:54:56Z

GiveMeLiberty: Iron Maiden? Really?

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers; instead one must rely on a love for Christ and prayer.
|1
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU"RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']
|Marilyn Manson
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.
|29
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|-
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pQBDE5Gbg ''Me Against The World'']
|Simple Plan
|As conservatives and Christians, [[liberal bias]] is all around us, in the media for example, trying to pressure us on a bandwagon to be like them and worship at the altar of liberalism and godlessness. It is up to us to stand up for what is right, even if we have to go up against the world.
|
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|
|-
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T00:34:54Z

GiveMeLiberty:

[[Image:Jobs.jpg|thumb|right|160px]]
'''Steve Paul Jobs''' (1955-2011)<ref>http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/</ref>; born in Los Altos CA) served as the CEO of [[Apple Inc.|Apple, Inc.]] until August 24, 2011, which he co-founded with [[Steve Wozniak]] in 1976. He also co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986.

==Biography==
Jobs left Apple in the mid-1980s after losing control of the company, but later returned in the mid-1990s to eventually restore it to preeminence. He was credited with overseeing the development and marketing of the Macintosh, the iPad, the iPhone, and the iPod.

Steve Jobs co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. Pixar merged with The [[Walt Disney Company]] in 2006, and Jobs served on Disney's board of directors. Jobs was one the very few persons to successfully run a company that takes a horizontal diversification approach (selling and marketing a variety of products that would appeal to their original consumer base). He was also one of the [[adoption success stories]].

::''I love beautiful objects. I love creating them. Negative people upset me... Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.''

Steve Jobs grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as [[Silicon Valley]], and lived there with his wife and three children before his death on October 5, 2011.<ref>http://www.geocities.com/franktau/History1.html</ref><ref>http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/</ref>

Jobs co-invented 313 Apple patents, mostly on designs rather than as utility patients. This is far more than most technology executives, such as [[Bill Gates]].

Jobs was a liberal who had donated over $150,000 in soft-money to causes related to the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php</ref> Jobs has been criticized for being a hypocrite who promotes liberal causes to further his own business agenda.<ref>http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072</ref>

== Awards ==
National Technology Medal from President Reagan in 1985, before founding NeXT; Jefferson Award for Public Service in 1987; Entrepreneur of the Decade by Inc. Magazine in 1989. [http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=49]

==External links==
*[http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html Steve Jobs] Apple-Macintosh computers-iPods.
*[http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Jobs.html Steve Paul Jobs]
*[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html "You've got to find what you love," Jobs says] Stanford Report, June 14, 2005.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jobs, Steve}}
[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-10-05T19:13:35Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Lack of mechanism */ No answer on the talk page, removing bad examples of premise

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 24 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 29%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-10-04T22:52:13Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Wait...what? */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-10-04T22:51:40Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Wait...what? */ new section

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:
'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''
'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

2011-10-04T22:38:02Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Campaign to establish a "living wage" */

[[File:ACORN.jpg|right]]
The '''Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now''' ('''ACORN''') was a [[left-wing]] activist group that described itself as ''"a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization"'' <ref>[http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342 ACORN website]</ref> geared to helping the poor achieve jobs and control over their communities. Founded in Arkansas in 1970, ACORN advocated higher minimum wages, access to affordable housing and increased voter registration in low-income communities, though many charge that they often focused on voter registration in swing political states like Ohio. On March 22, 2010, it announced that "it would close all its remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1" and try to resolve its outstanding debts.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23acorn.html</ref>

ACORN has been a top target for conservatives because of its liberal agenda. Stanley Kurtz calls it "the largest radical group in America,"<ref name=kurtz-inside> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= Inside Obama’s Acorn: By their fruits ye shall know them] - Stanley Kurtz</ref>
working "to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without."<ref name=kurtz-inside-2> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MQ== Kurtz, page 2]</ref>

ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke, a veteran of the [[Maoist]] oriented [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS).

From 1992 to 2004, [[Barack Obama]] ran leadership training sessions<ref>[http://www.socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=838 Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign], By Toni Foulkes, ''Social Policy'', Winter 2003, Vol. 34, No. 2 Spring 2004, Vol. 34, No. 3.</ref> and served as an attorney for the group in Chicago. The group has been accused of dispensing advice on how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage illegal immigrant girls,<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/ ACORN workers caught on tape allegedly advising on prostitution], ''[[CNN]]'', September 11, 2009.</ref> among other illegal activities.

ACORN was also been mired in the controversy connected with the collapse of mortgage giants [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]] in the fall of 2008.

==History==
[[File:ACORN banner.jpg|right|250px]]
ACORN was founded by organizers of [[Saul Alinsky]]'s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) <ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>.

George Wiley's community organization, National Welfare Rights Organization, forged an army of tens of thousands of single minority mothers. His aim: to flood the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, creating a crisis that, he believed, would force a radical restructuring of [[America]]’s unjust capitalist economy. The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams. Wiley then sent one of his young lieutenants, Wade Rathke, to Little Rock, Arkansas, to launch a new community-organizing group: ACORN. At that time, ACORN stood for the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. Rathke expanded it into a national organization replacing Arkansas with Association. Their ''People's Platform'' reads, “We will continue our fight . . . until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom . . . . We have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor.” <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref>

In 2008, a lawsuit filed in August by two board members accuses ACORN founder and former chief organizer Wade Rathke of either concealing or failing to properly report that his brother Dale embezzled around $948,000 from [[New Orleans]]-based ACORN and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/acorn_missing_money/2008/10/17/141481.html Missing ACORN Funds Spark Lawsuit, Power Struggle] AP, October 17, 2008</ref>

ACORN currently considers itself the nation’s largest community organization. It is a partner of the [[liberal]] coalition [[America Votes]]. <ref>[http://www.americavotes.org/site/partner_summaries/ America Votes - Partners]</ref> American Votes is a coalition member of the [[Shadow Party]]. <ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.com Discover The Networks]</ref>

==Ties==
===Barack Obama===
Liberal lawyer Sandy Newman founded Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization, to register voters in welfare offices and unemployment lines with the explicit goal of turning back the Reagan revolution. Newman hired Obama in 1992 to lead Project Vote efforts in [[Illinois]]. The effort's motto: "It's a Power Thing." Under Obama's leadership, he trained ACORN members in Chicago. According to ACORN, Obama trained its [[Chicago]] members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund (with [[William Ayers]]) and the Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/ Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

Federal Election Commission reports show ACORN-affiliated Citizens Services Inc. got $832,598 from the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote work during the primaries. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/ Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

Tom DeLay writing for the Washington Times says "Organizations like [[America Votes]] and ACORN are so closely tied to Democrat politics that they might as well be arms of the party apparatus." <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/05/the-democrats-shadow-party/ DELAY: The Democrats' Shadow Party] Washington Times, November 5, 2008</ref>

===2010 United States census===
In March 2009, it was disclosed that ACORN would play a role in the 2010 [[census]]. This raised several concerns regarding ACORN's past history of voter fraud and, along with oversight of the census being moved to White House Chief of Staff [[Rahm Emanuel]], raised questions about the fate of the census' historic non-partisan nature.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/lawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census/</ref>

After a video surfaced showing ACORN members trying to cheat the IRS, the Census Bureau decided to cancel their involvement with the 2010 Census count. It is reported that the group will still receive funds from the government branch Housing & Urban Development.

==Causes==
===Campaign to establish a "living wage"===

According to [[Steven Malanga]], a contributing editor at ''[[City Journal]]'', the "[[living wage]]" is the group's most successful local issue.<ref name=squash/>

However, Stanley Kurtz argues that, "Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s [[living-wage]] campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most."<ref name=kurtz-inside />

"Though Acorn touts living-wage laws as a way to lift the [[working poor]] into the [[middle class]], the vast body of academic work on [[wage laws]] shows that they end up hurting the poor by forcing businesses to eliminate some [[low-wage jobs]]. Acorn's own leadership understands this principle perfectly. When California regulators sued Acorn for not paying its own workers the minimum wage, Acorn argued that this would endanger its mission—because it would have to hire fewer workers."<ref name=squash>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Manhattan Institute]]</ref>

===Consumer advocacy===
Acorn now operates in more than 100 cities with a national budget of $37 million. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] WSJ, August 26, 2006</ref> Also, chapters in 700 poor neighborhoods with dues-paying members exceeding 120,000. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref> Despite what is stated on its official website (''"To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt"'' [http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342]), this left-wing [[liberal]] group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers under the guise of consumer advocacy and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance. The rest of its' money coming from left-wing heavyweights like billionaire [[George Soros]] and the [[Democracy Alliance]].<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_pro_barack_vote_fraud_drive_132618.htm?page=0 THE PRO-BARACK VOTE-FRAUD DRIVE] NY Post, October 8, 2008</ref>

===Support for gun control and illegal immigration===
ACORN legally intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, [[New Jersey]]'s local [[gun control]] ordinance, which was struck down December 13, 2006 in New Jersey state court as a violation of state law pre-empting stronger local gun ordinances.<ref>http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1166448999875 "N.J. Judge Voids City's Gun Control Law", Charles Toutant, ''New Jersey Law Journal'', December 20, 2006</ref>

ACORN has held frequent rallies in support of amnesty for [[illegal immigrants]] and against enforcement-only bills for dealing with the illegal immigration problem. According to their official website they list four demands on immigration, the first of which is "A path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States" (in other words, amnesty).<ref>http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=16966 ACORN official website position on illegal immigration</ref>

===Hostility to big businesses===
ACORN opts for undisguised [[authoritarian]] [[socialism]], as when it proposes that “large companies which desire to leave the community” be forced to obtain “an exit visa from the community board signifying that the company has adequately compensated all its employees and the community at large for losses due to relocation." ACORN promotes ideas like “sustainable development,” which would limit the growth of suburbs—so businesses and individuals can’t flee just beyond the city limits.

One of ACORN's highest targets is big businesses, dubbing them, “irresponsible.” This means any financial institutions that supposedly hinder the minority poor from getting the capital needed for home buying and business start-ups.<ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref> ACORN strongarms financial institutions into to providing risky loans to the undeserving. In 1998, Acorn activists disrupted Federal Reserve hearings on the proposed Citicorp merger with Travelers and then later protested Citigroup's acquisition of Associates First Capital Corp. Eventually Citigroup signed an agreement to provide mortgages through Acorn counseling centers, including home loans to undocumented aliens in California. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2006</ref> They protest and picket banks mergers until they are paid off. The banks see it as the cost of doing business.

One of Acorn's real intentions is to help its public-sector union allies. ACORN argues for the "Living-wage." By artificially raising the cost of outsourcing until it is just as costly as work done by government employees, "the living-wage undercuts the incentive to privatize." This is a tactic used against Wal-Mart preventing the opening of stores in low-income Chicago neighborhoods. ACORN's living-wage campaign is more likely to benefit unions than the poor. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2006</ref> A standing joke within the [[community organizing]] movement is that ACORN stands for Advance Communism Or Receive Nothing.

{{quotation|One is hard-pressed to find in the organization's many antipoverty initiatives any programs that address social dysfunctions like illegitimacy and single parenthood. Instead, as Acorn's executive director, Steven Kest, said several years ago, "We are more focused on [[corporate responsibility|irresponsible behavior]] in the corporate sector. I don't think [illegitimacy] comes anywhere close to the irresponsible behavior of people running the largest businesses in this country."<ref name=squash/> }}

==Connections to the subprime mortgage crisis==
:''Main article : [[Financial crisis of 2008]]''
In 1991 ACORN took over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA). ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the [[Clinton Administration]] that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the [[Fannie Mae]], [[Freddie Mac]] borne [[financial crisis of 2008]]. [[Barack Obama]] was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. As a ''[[New York Post]]'' article describes it:

:"A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

:Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0]

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003. [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=&w=MQ==]

The lender they were speaking of was [[Countrywide]], which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN. [http://www.inman.com/news/2008/02/1/countrywide-acorn-partner-foreclosure-prevention]

''Investor's Business Daily'' added:

:"The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama." [http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=787698]

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit." [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0]

==Scandals==
===Prostitution===
ACORN tried to help elect Obama in 2008, but nearly a third of the 1.3 million voters it registered were rejected as fraudulent.

In Sept. 2009 FOXNews showed videos from [[Andrew Breitbart]] of ACORN workers in several cities, including New York, Baltimore and Washington, giving advice to two conservative undercover investigators who posed as a prostitute and her pimp and said that they wanted to buy a house and run it as a brothel with underage teenage girls smuggled in from Central America. Happy to help, ACORN staffers gave practical advice on how to evade taxes and conceal the nature of the illegal business. The result was Congress voted to defund the group, the Census cancelled their contract and now ACORN is on the verge of bankruptcy. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/report-acorn-verge-bankruptcy/?test=latestnews Report: ACORN on the Verge of Bankruptcy, FOX News, March 20, 2010]</ref>

===Voter Fraud===
ACORN tactics are starting to reveal a pattern of unethical behavior across the country and they have been implicated in voter fraud schemes in [[Missouri]], [[Ohio]] and at least 12 other states. The group’s [[vandalism]] on electoral integrity is systemic.

====Past Issues====
* The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead [[voters]] and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a [[congressional]] hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.” Acorn workers have been convicted of fraud in Wisconsin and Colorado. <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189</ref>

* In March, [[Philadelphia]] elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary.

* In July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of [[Washington]] State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October.

* In 2004, ACORN registered illegal immigrant Nuradin Abdi. He was the suspected Ohio shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia, according to the Columbus Dispatch. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/minutemen_illegal_voting/2008/10/30/145903.html Minutemen Muster Nationally to Foil Illegal Voting] NewsMax, October 30, 2008</ref>

====2008 Presidential Elections====
When ACORN is questioned regarding their tactics, they reply with an attack of their own, voter suppression. Teresa James, an attorney for ACORN affiliate Project Vote says, "they don't have the resources," to catch all fraud. However, ACORN has the money to air commercials nationwide. In it, blaming racism and vote suppression, not ACORN. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/122345478771640.xml&coll=2 Voter-registration can't be totally fraud-free, group says], Plain Dealer, October 08, 2008</ref>

It was believed that ACORN has helped register over 1.27 million people nationwide. Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, told the [[New York Times]] that the real number of newly registered [[voters]] is closer to 450,000. About 400,000 registrations were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons including fraud. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_numbers_exaggerated/2008/10/24/143773.html ACORN Numbers Vastly Exaggerated] NewsMax, October 24, 2008</ref>

* [[Nevada]] officials raided ACORN's [[Las Vegas]] office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names. Among the bogus monikers: names of former [[Dallas Cowboys]] players.

* Lake County, Ind., election officials this month rejected thousands of registration forms ACORN had turned in from its drives. On a conference call yesterday, [[GOP]] officials noted that up to 11,000 of the applications were no good - tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen. At least 2,100 of the applications turned in were rejected.<ref>http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=1443</ref>

* ACORN vote canvassers had pulled names and addresses from phone books and forged signatures. According to a local paper (the Northwest [[Indiana]] and Illinois Times), "Large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style" and "apparently the organization's canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter registration quotas to get paid." The fake registrants include dead people and underage kids. Also, there were 5000 more voter registrations in Indiana than voters.

* [[Milwaukee]], Wisc., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter-registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. (State law bans felons from such work.) They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter-registration cards. The state GOP accuses the group of trying to get dead, imprisoned or imaginary people on the voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle. 26 ACORN workers are facing criminal investigations.

* In [[Florida]], in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple, copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. The Miami Herald reports: "One individual had 21 duplicate applications."

* In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people got free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling in some prospects. Homeless including felons were registered with an undocumented temporary address. <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_pro_barack_vote_fraud_drive_132618.htm?page=0 THE PRO-BARACK VOTE-FRAUD DRIVE] NY Post, October 8, 2008</ref> Also, Christopher Barkley claimed that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they'd already signed up. He had registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN relentlessly pursued him and others. A subpoenaed voter of Cuyahoga County, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm NUTS!
HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM] NY Post</ref> On October 14, 2008, the Buckeye Institute filed a RICO suit against ACORN for vote fraud.<ref>http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=1502</ref>

* In [[Pennsylvania]], The Allegheny County district attorney said Thursday that criminal charges could result from nearly 100 fraudulent voter registrations submitted in the Pittsburgh area. <ref>[http://obamaacorn.com/acorn-may-face-new-charges-in-pa-update-video-added-hotair/ ACORN may face new charges in PA] ObamaAcorn.com, October 10, 2008</ref>

* In [[Michigan]], Oakland County election officials found more than 33,000 duplicate registrations, about two-thirds of new applications since August and ACORN canvassers submitted most of those applications. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/?page=2 Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

* Evidence has surfaced that ACORN and Barack Obama are intimately linked. The article, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in the Winter 2003-Spring 2004 issue of Social Policy magazine, was written by ACORN organizer Toni Foulkes. The full article is available [http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/chicago-the-barack-obama-campaign.pdf here].

*The [[New York Times]] admitted in May 2009, that prior to the presidential election it killed a story involving corruption allegations with Acorn that might have hurt the Obama presidential campaign. The admission came from a column by Clark Hoyt, where he describe the allegations against the Obama campaign and Acorn as "nonsense." <ref>[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/18/new-york-times-finally-admits New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story]. The American Spectator May 18, 2009</ref>

===Embezzlement===
A group of dissident members has been seeking a federal investigation of ACORN for alleged criminal violations stemming from an embezzlement scheme that has rocked the organization since 2008. They call themselves The Acorn 8. On January 7, 2009, they released a 24-page document demanding federal investigators to look into fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy charges, and criminal civil rights violations in relation to the embezzlement of around $1 million from the accounts and an alleged cover-up of the theft for nearly a decade. This stems from a dispute within ACORN since disclosure in June that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN co-founder and former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke, embezzled $948,000. <ref> [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_606173.html Ousted ACORN members seek federal criminal investigation]Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 8, 2009 </ref>

ACORN 8 members, however, have claimed the embezzlement is a sign of a deeper problems within the organization. They created a counter website to address the disputes they have with ACORN. <ref> [http://www.acorn-8.net/ Acorn 8 website] </ref> Marcel Reid, who is the D.C. Acorn Chair and member of the Acorn 8, has gone on [[Fox News]] to explain her story along with others. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520671,00.html Twists and Turns of ACORN's Finances]Fox News, May 18, 2009 </ref> <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519834,00.html Former ACORN Board Members Speak Out]Fox News, May 11, 2009 </ref>

Anita MonCrief has been one of the most outspoken former employees of ACORN. MonCrief testified in court that the Obama campaign had given ACORN their donor list and coordinated funding with them. <ref> [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533169940482893.html An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court] </ref> The New York Times had been investigating MonCrief's claims during the 2008 campaign, but when MonCrief offered to supply the Times with a copy of the Obama campaign's donor list, the Times killed the story. <ref> [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023580.php Killing a Story: How It's Done]</ref> MonCrief has set up a blog <ref>[http://www.anitamoncrief.blogspot.com/ Anita MonCrief]</ref> and Twitter account <ref> [http://twitter.com/anitamoncrief @AnitaMonCrief] </ref> which she used to release internal ACORN documents to bloggers on May 21, 2009. <ref> [http://mitchellblatt.com/blog/2009/05/acorn-project-vote-registration An Inside Look at How ACORN Uses Project Vote Records to Register Members] </ref>

==Response==
===FBI Investigation===
By October 2008, the [[FBI]] has announced it planned to investigate the group. "It's a matter we take very seriously," FBI spokeswoman Bridget Patton told the Associated Press. "It is against the law to register someone to vote who does not fall within the parameters to vote, or to put someone on there falsely." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37232 De-Fund ACORN, Republican Leader Insists] CNSNews, October 10, 2008</ref>

In March 2010, it was reported that the public interest group [[Judicial Watch]] had obtained documents from the FBI which provided information on the federal investigations into ACORN. Judicial Watch stated that the FBI documents "show serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN."
<blockquote>
The documents include background information on two specific complaints filed in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively, during the 2008 election season.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The documents include records related to a federal investigation of ACORN corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, involving 1,492 allegedly fraudulent voter registration cards submitted by Project Vote, a liberal non-profit organization affiliated with ACORN on voter registration drives, during the 2006 election season.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old.
</blockquote>

The Justice Department closed down the investigation in March 2009, stating that ACORN broke no laws, though it noted that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices.”<ref>www.judicialwatch.org, Judicial Watch News, March 11, 2010</ref>

===Inspector General report ===
A “preliminary” [[GAO]] report<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10648r.pdf]</ref> proves that the now-defunct left-wing group [[ACORN]]'s decision to shut down was the result of “a [[Joe McCarthy|McCarthy]]-era style war against the poor and minorities,” says the group's former leader, Bertha Lewis.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0618/exclusive/]</ref> The report found ACORN affiliates received a stunning $40.4 million in taxpayer subsidies in 2005-2009 alone. Even the Justice Department (which is supposed to be investigating the group) funded the creation of the “ACORN Youth Union” to “provide youth leadership training” (indoctrinate public-school students) to win “specific improvements and policy changes”(lobby for the group's pet issues) “such as school funding” (higher taxes), etc.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68062]</ref> The IG report indicates that of the six major federal agencies GAO queried, only one has provided responses. “We did not independently assess the sufficiency of agencies' oversight activities,” states the report. The GAO added that 12 ACORN workers have pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud; unmentioned was that at least six more former ACORN workers are under indictment on similar charges.<ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_686567.html]</ref> Yet to investigated are charges ACORN engaged in violations of RICO through money-laundering of taxpayer funds designated for nonpartisan activities, engaged in partisan activities, or violated [[ERISA]] by shifting pension funds to conceal a million-dollar embezzlement perpetrated by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother. The report incorporates changes ACORN demanded.<ref>[http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/2010/06/16/new-gao-report-on-acorn-is-compromised-acorns-lawyer-demanded-changes-and-he-got-them/ </ref>

===Civil Suit===
An Ohio civil suit filed by Buckeye Institute against ACORN and its Project Vote operation alleges that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is regularly advised by ACORN on election strategy, and deprives voters “of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process.” <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/brunner_acorn/2009/02/19/183402.html Senate Candidate Brunner is ACORN Loyalist] NewsMax, February 19, 2009</ref>

===Defunding===
Amid a widening probe into voter registration fraud by the liberal group, House Republican Leader [[John Boehner]] (R-Ohio) said “All federal funding to ACORN must be stopped.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37232 De-Fund ACORN, Republican Leader Insists] CNSNews, October 10, 2008</ref> In addition, "..further evidence that this group cannot be trusted with another dollar of the taxpayers’ money. House [[Republicans]] took at stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their [Democratic] allies...but now more must be done.” The congressman's Web site notes that in the recently passed financial [[bailout]] package, Republicans “stripped out special-interest earmarks for trial lawyers, labor bosses and thinly-veiled political organizations like ACORN..." [http://www.gop.com/obamaacorntree/ RNC Fact Sheet]

Reeling from revelations of systematic fraud in both election registration and community development programs, ACORN saw both Houses of Congress vote to cut off federal funds in the "Defund ACORN Act," and the Census Bureau reject its help. Many states and cities are considering similar punishment. It shuttered 40% of its centers in cities including Chicago, Salt Lake City, Atlanta and Omaha, and is not taking new clients in the centers that remain open in low-income neighborhoods.<ref> P.J. Huffstutter and Kate Linthicum, [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-acorn19-2009sep19,0,6183518.story "ACORN scaling back or shutting down in many cities," ''Los Angeles Times'' Sep. 19, 2009]</ref> In an effort to regain some support, it sued to have the "Defund ACORN Act" enjoined as an unconstitutional [[bill of attainder]]. On December 11, the district court ruled in favor of ACORN, citing the precedent of [[United States v. Lovett]] to say that Congress cannot "declare that a single, named organization is barred from all federal funding in the absence of a trial." <ref>[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/judge-gershon-12-11-2009-pi-order.pdf ACORN v. United States, full opinion]</ref>

===Convictions===
So far in 2010, 15 ACORN members have been convicted of voter fraud across the country. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-voter-fraud-hall-of-shame-milwaukee-voter-fraud-conviction-makes-acorn%E2%80%99s-2010-total-at-least-15/ The voter fraud hall of shame: Milwaukee voter fraud conviction makes ACORN’s 2010 total at least 15, The Daily Caller, November 23, 2010]</ref>

===Name change===
Due to all the conservative press ACORN gets for fraud, Wade Rathke has approved changing their name to 'Community Organizations International'. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ACORN-drops-tarnished-name-and-moves-to-silence-critics-48730537.html ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics] Washington Examiner, June 21, 2009</ref>

==ACORN successor groups==
ACORN the national organizational is now defunct. The group has split into regional organizations under different names shown below.

*Community Organizations International
*Texans Together Education Fund
*Health Care for America NOW!
*Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
*Voting Is Power
*Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas
*Communities Voting Together
*Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change
*Affordable Housing Centers of America, Inc.
*New England United For justice
*A Community Voice
*Communities United
*Minnesota Neighborhood's Organizing For Change
*Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment
*New York Communities For Change
*Working Families Party
*Pennsylvania Neighborhoods For Social Justice
*Texas Organizing Project
*Organization United For Reform (Our) Washington
*American Institute For Social Justice

==Also See==
* [[SEIU]]
* [[New Party]]
* [[Front organization]]

==External Links==
* [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= Inside Obama’s Acorn] National Review Online
* [http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-Journal
* [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/17/house-votes-strip-acorn-federal-funding/ House Votes to Strip ACORN of Federal Funding]
* [http://nutbusterz.org/ Nutbusterz.org]

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

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category: Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Corruption]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

2011-10-04T22:36:15Z

GiveMeLiberty: Changing to past tense and without sources you cannot claim fact

[[File:ACORN.jpg|right]]
The '''Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now''' ('''ACORN''') was a [[left-wing]] activist group that described itself as ''"a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization"'' <ref>[http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342 ACORN website]</ref> geared to helping the poor achieve jobs and control over their communities. Founded in Arkansas in 1970, ACORN advocated higher minimum wages, access to affordable housing and increased voter registration in low-income communities, though many charge that they often focused on voter registration in swing political states like Ohio. On March 22, 2010, it announced that "it would close all its remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1" and try to resolve its outstanding debts.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23acorn.html</ref>

ACORN has been a top target for conservatives because of its liberal agenda. Stanley Kurtz calls it "the largest radical group in America,"<ref name=kurtz-inside> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= Inside Obama’s Acorn: By their fruits ye shall know them] - Stanley Kurtz</ref>
working "to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without."<ref name=kurtz-inside-2> [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MQ== Kurtz, page 2]</ref>

ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke, a veteran of the [[Maoist]] oriented [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS).

From 1992 to 2004, [[Barack Obama]] ran leadership training sessions<ref>[http://www.socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=838 Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign], By Toni Foulkes, ''Social Policy'', Winter 2003, Vol. 34, No. 2 Spring 2004, Vol. 34, No. 3.</ref> and served as an attorney for the group in Chicago. The group has been accused of dispensing advice on how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage illegal immigrant girls,<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/ ACORN workers caught on tape allegedly advising on prostitution], ''[[CNN]]'', September 11, 2009.</ref> among other illegal activities.

ACORN was also been mired in the controversy connected with the collapse of mortgage giants [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]] in the fall of 2008.

==History==
[[File:ACORN banner.jpg|right|250px]]
ACORN was founded by organizers of [[Saul Alinsky]]'s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) <ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>.

George Wiley's community organization, National Welfare Rights Organization, forged an army of tens of thousands of single minority mothers. His aim: to flood the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, creating a crisis that, he believed, would force a radical restructuring of [[America]]’s unjust capitalist economy. The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams. Wiley then sent one of his young lieutenants, Wade Rathke, to Little Rock, Arkansas, to launch a new community-organizing group: ACORN. At that time, ACORN stood for the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. Rathke expanded it into a national organization replacing Arkansas with Association. Their ''People's Platform'' reads, “We will continue our fight . . . until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom . . . . We have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor.” <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref>

In 2008, a lawsuit filed in August by two board members accuses ACORN founder and former chief organizer Wade Rathke of either concealing or failing to properly report that his brother Dale embezzled around $948,000 from [[New Orleans]]-based ACORN and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/acorn_missing_money/2008/10/17/141481.html Missing ACORN Funds Spark Lawsuit, Power Struggle] AP, October 17, 2008</ref>

ACORN currently considers itself the nation’s largest community organization. It is a partner of the [[liberal]] coalition [[America Votes]]. <ref>[http://www.americavotes.org/site/partner_summaries/ America Votes - Partners]</ref> American Votes is a coalition member of the [[Shadow Party]]. <ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.com Discover The Networks]</ref>

==Ties==
===Barack Obama===
Liberal lawyer Sandy Newman founded Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization, to register voters in welfare offices and unemployment lines with the explicit goal of turning back the Reagan revolution. Newman hired Obama in 1992 to lead Project Vote efforts in [[Illinois]]. The effort's motto: "It's a Power Thing." Under Obama's leadership, he trained ACORN members in Chicago. According to ACORN, Obama trained its [[Chicago]] members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund (with [[William Ayers]]) and the Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/ Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

Federal Election Commission reports show ACORN-affiliated Citizens Services Inc. got $832,598 from the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote work during the primaries. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/ Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

Tom DeLay writing for the Washington Times says "Organizations like [[America Votes]] and ACORN are so closely tied to Democrat politics that they might as well be arms of the party apparatus." <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/05/the-democrats-shadow-party/ DELAY: The Democrats' Shadow Party] Washington Times, November 5, 2008</ref>

===2010 United States census===
In March 2009, it was disclosed that ACORN would play a role in the 2010 [[census]]. This raised several concerns regarding ACORN's past history of voter fraud and, along with oversight of the census being moved to White House Chief of Staff [[Rahm Emanuel]], raised questions about the fate of the census' historic non-partisan nature.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/lawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census/</ref>

After a video surfaced showing ACORN members trying to cheat the IRS, the Census Bureau decided to cancel their involvement with the 2010 Census count. It is reported that the group will still receive funds from the government branch Housing & Urban Development.

==Causes==
===Campaign to establish a "living wage"===

According to [[Steven Malanga]], a contributing editor at ''[[City Journal]]'', the "[[living wage]]" is the group's most successful local issue.<ref name=squash/>

"Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s [[living-wage]] campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most."<ref name=kurtz-inside />

"Though Acorn touts living-wage laws as a way to lift the [[working poor]] into the [[middle class]], the vast body of academic work on [[wage laws]] shows that they end up hurting the poor by forcing businesses to eliminate some [[low-wage jobs]]. Acorn's own leadership understands this principle perfectly. When California regulators sued Acorn for not paying its own workers the minimum wage, Acorn argued that this would endanger its mission—because it would have to hire fewer workers."<ref name=squash>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Manhattan Institute]]</ref>

===Consumer advocacy===
Acorn now operates in more than 100 cities with a national budget of $37 million. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] WSJ, August 26, 2006</ref> Also, chapters in 700 poor neighborhoods with dues-paying members exceeding 120,000. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref> Despite what is stated on its official website (''"To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt"'' [http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12342]), this left-wing [[liberal]] group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers under the guise of consumer advocacy and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance. The rest of its' money coming from left-wing heavyweights like billionaire [[George Soros]] and the [[Democracy Alliance]].<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_pro_barack_vote_fraud_drive_132618.htm?page=0 THE PRO-BARACK VOTE-FRAUD DRIVE] NY Post, October 8, 2008</ref>

===Support for gun control and illegal immigration===
ACORN legally intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, [[New Jersey]]'s local [[gun control]] ordinance, which was struck down December 13, 2006 in New Jersey state court as a violation of state law pre-empting stronger local gun ordinances.<ref>http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1166448999875 "N.J. Judge Voids City's Gun Control Law", Charles Toutant, ''New Jersey Law Journal'', December 20, 2006</ref>

ACORN has held frequent rallies in support of amnesty for [[illegal immigrants]] and against enforcement-only bills for dealing with the illegal immigration problem. According to their official website they list four demands on immigration, the first of which is "A path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States" (in other words, amnesty).<ref>http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=16966 ACORN official website position on illegal immigration</ref>

===Hostility to big businesses===
ACORN opts for undisguised [[authoritarian]] [[socialism]], as when it proposes that “large companies which desire to leave the community” be forced to obtain “an exit visa from the community board signifying that the company has adequately compensated all its employees and the community at large for losses due to relocation." ACORN promotes ideas like “sustainable development,” which would limit the growth of suburbs—so businesses and individuals can’t flee just beyond the city limits.

One of ACORN's highest targets is big businesses, dubbing them, “irresponsible.” This means any financial institutions that supposedly hinder the minority poor from getting the capital needed for home buying and business start-ups.<ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-journal.org, 2003</ref> ACORN strongarms financial institutions into to providing risky loans to the undeserving. In 1998, Acorn activists disrupted Federal Reserve hearings on the proposed Citicorp merger with Travelers and then later protested Citigroup's acquisition of Associates First Capital Corp. Eventually Citigroup signed an agreement to provide mortgages through Acorn counseling centers, including home loans to undocumented aliens in California. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2006</ref> They protest and picket banks mergers until they are paid off. The banks see it as the cost of doing business.

One of Acorn's real intentions is to help its public-sector union allies. ACORN argues for the "Living-wage." By artificially raising the cost of outsourcing until it is just as costly as work done by government employees, "the living-wage undercuts the incentive to privatize." This is a tactic used against Wal-Mart preventing the opening of stores in low-income Chicago neighborhoods. ACORN's living-wage campaign is more likely to benefit unions than the poor. <ref>[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm Acorn Squash] Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2006</ref> A standing joke within the [[community organizing]] movement is that ACORN stands for Advance Communism Or Receive Nothing.

{{quotation|One is hard-pressed to find in the organization's many antipoverty initiatives any programs that address social dysfunctions like illegitimacy and single parenthood. Instead, as Acorn's executive director, Steven Kest, said several years ago, "We are more focused on [[corporate responsibility|irresponsible behavior]] in the corporate sector. I don't think [illegitimacy] comes anywhere close to the irresponsible behavior of people running the largest businesses in this country."<ref name=squash/> }}

==Connections to the subprime mortgage crisis==
:''Main article : [[Financial crisis of 2008]]''
In 1991 ACORN took over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA). ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the [[Clinton Administration]] that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the [[Fannie Mae]], [[Freddie Mac]] borne [[financial crisis of 2008]]. [[Barack Obama]] was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. As a ''[[New York Post]]'' article describes it:

:"A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

:Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0]

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003. [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=&w=MQ==]

The lender they were speaking of was [[Countrywide]], which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN. [http://www.inman.com/news/2008/02/1/countrywide-acorn-partner-foreclosure-prevention]

''Investor's Business Daily'' added:

:"The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama." [http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=787698]

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit." [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0]

==Scandals==
===Prostitution===
ACORN tried to help elect Obama in 2008, but nearly a third of the 1.3 million voters it registered were rejected as fraudulent.

In Sept. 2009 FOXNews showed videos from [[Andrew Breitbart]] of ACORN workers in several cities, including New York, Baltimore and Washington, giving advice to two conservative undercover investigators who posed as a prostitute and her pimp and said that they wanted to buy a house and run it as a brothel with underage teenage girls smuggled in from Central America. Happy to help, ACORN staffers gave practical advice on how to evade taxes and conceal the nature of the illegal business. The result was Congress voted to defund the group, the Census cancelled their contract and now ACORN is on the verge of bankruptcy. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/report-acorn-verge-bankruptcy/?test=latestnews Report: ACORN on the Verge of Bankruptcy, FOX News, March 20, 2010]</ref>

===Voter Fraud===
ACORN tactics are starting to reveal a pattern of unethical behavior across the country and they have been implicated in voter fraud schemes in [[Missouri]], [[Ohio]] and at least 12 other states. The group’s [[vandalism]] on electoral integrity is systemic.

====Past Issues====
* The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead [[voters]] and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a [[congressional]] hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.” Acorn workers have been convicted of fraud in Wisconsin and Colorado. <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189</ref>

* In March, [[Philadelphia]] elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary.

* In July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of [[Washington]] State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October.

* In 2004, ACORN registered illegal immigrant Nuradin Abdi. He was the suspected Ohio shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia, according to the Columbus Dispatch. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/minutemen_illegal_voting/2008/10/30/145903.html Minutemen Muster Nationally to Foil Illegal Voting] NewsMax, October 30, 2008</ref>

====2008 Presidential Elections====
When ACORN is questioned regarding their tactics, they reply with an attack of their own, voter suppression. Teresa James, an attorney for ACORN affiliate Project Vote says, "they don't have the resources," to catch all fraud. However, ACORN has the money to air commercials nationwide. In it, blaming racism and vote suppression, not ACORN. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/122345478771640.xml&coll=2 Voter-registration can't be totally fraud-free, group says], Plain Dealer, October 08, 2008</ref>

It was believed that ACORN has helped register over 1.27 million people nationwide. Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, told the [[New York Times]] that the real number of newly registered [[voters]] is closer to 450,000. About 400,000 registrations were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons including fraud. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_numbers_exaggerated/2008/10/24/143773.html ACORN Numbers Vastly Exaggerated] NewsMax, October 24, 2008</ref>

* [[Nevada]] officials raided ACORN's [[Las Vegas]] office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names. Among the bogus monikers: names of former [[Dallas Cowboys]] players.

* Lake County, Ind., election officials this month rejected thousands of registration forms ACORN had turned in from its drives. On a conference call yesterday, [[GOP]] officials noted that up to 11,000 of the applications were no good - tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen. At least 2,100 of the applications turned in were rejected.<ref>http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=1443</ref>

* ACORN vote canvassers had pulled names and addresses from phone books and forged signatures. According to a local paper (the Northwest [[Indiana]] and Illinois Times), "Large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style" and "apparently the organization's canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter registration quotas to get paid." The fake registrants include dead people and underage kids. Also, there were 5000 more voter registrations in Indiana than voters.

* [[Milwaukee]], Wisc., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter-registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. (State law bans felons from such work.) They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter-registration cards. The state GOP accuses the group of trying to get dead, imprisoned or imaginary people on the voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle. 26 ACORN workers are facing criminal investigations.

* In [[Florida]], in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple, copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. The Miami Herald reports: "One individual had 21 duplicate applications."

* In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people got free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling in some prospects. Homeless including felons were registered with an undocumented temporary address. <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_pro_barack_vote_fraud_drive_132618.htm?page=0 THE PRO-BARACK VOTE-FRAUD DRIVE] NY Post, October 8, 2008</ref> Also, Christopher Barkley claimed that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they'd already signed up. He had registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN relentlessly pursued him and others. A subpoenaed voter of Cuyahoga County, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm NUTS!
HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM] NY Post</ref> On October 14, 2008, the Buckeye Institute filed a RICO suit against ACORN for vote fraud.<ref>http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=1502</ref>

* In [[Pennsylvania]], The Allegheny County district attorney said Thursday that criminal charges could result from nearly 100 fraudulent voter registrations submitted in the Pittsburgh area. <ref>[http://obamaacorn.com/acorn-may-face-new-charges-in-pa-update-video-added-hotair/ ACORN may face new charges in PA] ObamaAcorn.com, October 10, 2008</ref>

* In [[Michigan]], Oakland County election officials found more than 33,000 duplicate registrations, about two-thirds of new applications since August and ACORN canvassers submitted most of those applications. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-camp-downplays-ACORN-payments/?page=2 Obama camp downplays ACORN payments] Washington Times, October 10, 2008</ref>

* Evidence has surfaced that ACORN and Barack Obama are intimately linked. The article, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in the Winter 2003-Spring 2004 issue of Social Policy magazine, was written by ACORN organizer Toni Foulkes. The full article is available [http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/chicago-the-barack-obama-campaign.pdf here].

*The [[New York Times]] admitted in May 2009, that prior to the presidential election it killed a story involving corruption allegations with Acorn that might have hurt the Obama presidential campaign. The admission came from a column by Clark Hoyt, where he describe the allegations against the Obama campaign and Acorn as "nonsense." <ref>[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/18/new-york-times-finally-admits New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story]. The American Spectator May 18, 2009</ref>

===Embezzlement===
A group of dissident members has been seeking a federal investigation of ACORN for alleged criminal violations stemming from an embezzlement scheme that has rocked the organization since 2008. They call themselves The Acorn 8. On January 7, 2009, they released a 24-page document demanding federal investigators to look into fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy charges, and criminal civil rights violations in relation to the embezzlement of around $1 million from the accounts and an alleged cover-up of the theft for nearly a decade. This stems from a dispute within ACORN since disclosure in June that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN co-founder and former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke, embezzled $948,000. <ref> [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_606173.html Ousted ACORN members seek federal criminal investigation]Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 8, 2009 </ref>

ACORN 8 members, however, have claimed the embezzlement is a sign of a deeper problems within the organization. They created a counter website to address the disputes they have with ACORN. <ref> [http://www.acorn-8.net/ Acorn 8 website] </ref> Marcel Reid, who is the D.C. Acorn Chair and member of the Acorn 8, has gone on [[Fox News]] to explain her story along with others. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520671,00.html Twists and Turns of ACORN's Finances]Fox News, May 18, 2009 </ref> <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519834,00.html Former ACORN Board Members Speak Out]Fox News, May 11, 2009 </ref>

Anita MonCrief has been one of the most outspoken former employees of ACORN. MonCrief testified in court that the Obama campaign had given ACORN their donor list and coordinated funding with them. <ref> [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533169940482893.html An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court] </ref> The New York Times had been investigating MonCrief's claims during the 2008 campaign, but when MonCrief offered to supply the Times with a copy of the Obama campaign's donor list, the Times killed the story. <ref> [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023580.php Killing a Story: How It's Done]</ref> MonCrief has set up a blog <ref>[http://www.anitamoncrief.blogspot.com/ Anita MonCrief]</ref> and Twitter account <ref> [http://twitter.com/anitamoncrief @AnitaMonCrief] </ref> which she used to release internal ACORN documents to bloggers on May 21, 2009. <ref> [http://mitchellblatt.com/blog/2009/05/acorn-project-vote-registration An Inside Look at How ACORN Uses Project Vote Records to Register Members] </ref>

==Response==
===FBI Investigation===
By October 2008, the [[FBI]] has announced it planned to investigate the group. "It's a matter we take very seriously," FBI spokeswoman Bridget Patton told the Associated Press. "It is against the law to register someone to vote who does not fall within the parameters to vote, or to put someone on there falsely." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37232 De-Fund ACORN, Republican Leader Insists] CNSNews, October 10, 2008</ref>

In March 2010, it was reported that the public interest group [[Judicial Watch]] had obtained documents from the FBI which provided information on the federal investigations into ACORN. Judicial Watch stated that the FBI documents "show serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN."
<blockquote>
The documents include background information on two specific complaints filed in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively, during the 2008 election season.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The documents include records related to a federal investigation of ACORN corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, involving 1,492 allegedly fraudulent voter registration cards submitted by Project Vote, a liberal non-profit organization affiliated with ACORN on voter registration drives, during the 2006 election season.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old.
</blockquote>

The Justice Department closed down the investigation in March 2009, stating that ACORN broke no laws, though it noted that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices.”<ref>www.judicialwatch.org, Judicial Watch News, March 11, 2010</ref>

===Inspector General report ===
A “preliminary” [[GAO]] report<ref>[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10648r.pdf]</ref> proves that the now-defunct left-wing group [[ACORN]]'s decision to shut down was the result of “a [[Joe McCarthy|McCarthy]]-era style war against the poor and minorities,” says the group's former leader, Bertha Lewis.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0618/exclusive/]</ref> The report found ACORN affiliates received a stunning $40.4 million in taxpayer subsidies in 2005-2009 alone. Even the Justice Department (which is supposed to be investigating the group) funded the creation of the “ACORN Youth Union” to “provide youth leadership training” (indoctrinate public-school students) to win “specific improvements and policy changes”(lobby for the group's pet issues) “such as school funding” (higher taxes), etc.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68062]</ref> The IG report indicates that of the six major federal agencies GAO queried, only one has provided responses. “We did not independently assess the sufficiency of agencies' oversight activities,” states the report. The GAO added that 12 ACORN workers have pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud; unmentioned was that at least six more former ACORN workers are under indictment on similar charges.<ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_686567.html]</ref> Yet to investigated are charges ACORN engaged in violations of RICO through money-laundering of taxpayer funds designated for nonpartisan activities, engaged in partisan activities, or violated [[ERISA]] by shifting pension funds to conceal a million-dollar embezzlement perpetrated by ACORN founder Wade Rathke's brother. The report incorporates changes ACORN demanded.<ref>[http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/2010/06/16/new-gao-report-on-acorn-is-compromised-acorns-lawyer-demanded-changes-and-he-got-them/ </ref>

===Civil Suit===
An Ohio civil suit filed by Buckeye Institute against ACORN and its Project Vote operation alleges that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is regularly advised by ACORN on election strategy, and deprives voters “of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process.” <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/brunner_acorn/2009/02/19/183402.html Senate Candidate Brunner is ACORN Loyalist] NewsMax, February 19, 2009</ref>

===Defunding===
Amid a widening probe into voter registration fraud by the liberal group, House Republican Leader [[John Boehner]] (R-Ohio) said “All federal funding to ACORN must be stopped.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37232 De-Fund ACORN, Republican Leader Insists] CNSNews, October 10, 2008</ref> In addition, "..further evidence that this group cannot be trusted with another dollar of the taxpayers’ money. House [[Republicans]] took at stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their [Democratic] allies...but now more must be done.” The congressman's Web site notes that in the recently passed financial [[bailout]] package, Republicans “stripped out special-interest earmarks for trial lawyers, labor bosses and thinly-veiled political organizations like ACORN..." [http://www.gop.com/obamaacorntree/ RNC Fact Sheet]

Reeling from revelations of systematic fraud in both election registration and community development programs, ACORN saw both Houses of Congress vote to cut off federal funds in the "Defund ACORN Act," and the Census Bureau reject its help. Many states and cities are considering similar punishment. It shuttered 40% of its centers in cities including Chicago, Salt Lake City, Atlanta and Omaha, and is not taking new clients in the centers that remain open in low-income neighborhoods.<ref> P.J. Huffstutter and Kate Linthicum, [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-acorn19-2009sep19,0,6183518.story "ACORN scaling back or shutting down in many cities," ''Los Angeles Times'' Sep. 19, 2009]</ref> In an effort to regain some support, it sued to have the "Defund ACORN Act" enjoined as an unconstitutional [[bill of attainder]]. On December 11, the district court ruled in favor of ACORN, citing the precedent of [[United States v. Lovett]] to say that Congress cannot "declare that a single, named organization is barred from all federal funding in the absence of a trial." <ref>[http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/judge-gershon-12-11-2009-pi-order.pdf ACORN v. United States, full opinion]</ref>

===Convictions===
So far in 2010, 15 ACORN members have been convicted of voter fraud across the country. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-voter-fraud-hall-of-shame-milwaukee-voter-fraud-conviction-makes-acorn%E2%80%99s-2010-total-at-least-15/ The voter fraud hall of shame: Milwaukee voter fraud conviction makes ACORN’s 2010 total at least 15, The Daily Caller, November 23, 2010]</ref>

===Name change===
Due to all the conservative press ACORN gets for fraud, Wade Rathke has approved changing their name to 'Community Organizations International'. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ACORN-drops-tarnished-name-and-moves-to-silence-critics-48730537.html ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics] Washington Examiner, June 21, 2009</ref>

==ACORN successor groups==
ACORN the national organizational is now defunct. The group has split into regional organizations under different names shown below.

*Community Organizations International
*Texans Together Education Fund
*Health Care for America NOW!
*Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
*Voting Is Power
*Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas
*Communities Voting Together
*Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change
*Affordable Housing Centers of America, Inc.
*New England United For justice
*A Community Voice
*Communities United
*Minnesota Neighborhood's Organizing For Change
*Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment
*New York Communities For Change
*Working Families Party
*Pennsylvania Neighborhoods For Social Justice
*Texas Organizing Project
*Organization United For Reform (Our) Washington
*American Institute For Social Justice

==Also See==
* [[SEIU]]
* [[New Party]]
* [[Front organization]]

==External Links==
* [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= Inside Obama’s Acorn] National Review Online
* [http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities] City-Journal
* [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/17/house-votes-strip-acorn-federal-funding/ House Votes to Strip ACORN of Federal Funding]
* [http://nutbusterz.org/ Nutbusterz.org]

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

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category: Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Corruption]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Glenn Beck

2011-10-04T22:32:18Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Liberal attempts to silence Beck */ ...He called Obama a racist., that's going to be inflammatory and controversial

[[Image:Beck Glenn Fox.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Glenn Beck''' is a [[conservative]] [[libertarian]] talk-radio host and television anchor who was employed by [[Fox News]].<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref>
His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to FOX.

Beck is the author of five books, including ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' and three #1 New York Times Bestsellers, ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' ''Arguing With Idiots,'' and most recently ''Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure''.

Beck is a [[Mormon]], having converted after recovering from [[alcoholism]].<ref>Glenn Beck. (2008). An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck [DVD]. Deserest Book.</ref>

== Earnings and Book Deal ==
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref>

In addition to several volumes of political commentary, Beck has also written a novel, [[The Overton Window]], published in 2010.

==Controversies==
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.

The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time]] magazine, and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover.

On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]]. [[Google]] attempted to mislead attendees by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.

On June 27th, 2011, Glen Beck and his wife were attacked by liberal hooligans in New York City's Bryant Park. [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/new_yorkers_turned_on_glenn_be.html]

== Known favorite associations ==
Beck frequently has Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] appear as a guest on his program. Judge Napolitano has even hosted the Glenn Beck show himself when Mr. Beck was on assignment.

== 9/12 Project ==
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].

===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===

The 9 Principles:
# America Is Good.
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The 12 Values:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude

==June 2011==
June 30th was Glenn Beck's last show on Fox News, breaking all records for his timeslot. He is investing his future in an internet program with a different format. Beck's show on Fox was replaced by "The Five".

Between the time he left Fox and The Five started, Beck reruns were played. To add to liberal's disgust, Beck reruns handily won the ratings time slot over CNN and MSNBC. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-reruns-beat-cnn-msnbc/ ONE WEEK AFTER LEAVING FOX NEWS, BECK RE-RUNS STILL WINNING TIME SLOT, The Blaze, July 9, 2011]</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]
* [[Fox News]]
* [[Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure]]
* [[The Overton Window]]

==External References==
* [http://www.gbtv.com GBTV]
* [http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to Fox News]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Television]]
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category: Media personalities ]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

{{Conservatism}}

Homosexual rights advocacy

2011-10-04T13:11:47Z

GiveMeLiberty: Undo revision 924227 by JackRWB (talk) Not really

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships.

The gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of sexual [[perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
# Homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be respected, despite God's laws against it in the Bible.

Gay rights are a favored topic of [[liberals]], and are based on [[moral relativity]], the idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong.

==Ludicrous arguments==

Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite '''factors other than genetics''' in the development of homosexual desires.{{citation needed}}

==History==
[[Harry Hay]] is regarded as the father of the modern gay liberation movement. As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

== Homosexual Rights Timeline ==

* Henry Gerber starts Society for Human Rights under a State of Illinois charter for a non-profit organization for people with "mental abnormalities" on December 25, 1924. Several issues of ''Friendship and Freedom'', the first American publication for homosexuals were printed but the organization was shut down by Chicago police. Gerber was arrested but not convicted of any crime. As a result of his efforts, Gerber lost his job as a post office clerk, his life savings, and found himself abandoned by his friends. <ref> http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/factfiles/ff1924.htm </ref>

* [[Alfred Kinsey]] publishes ''Sexual Behavior in the Human Male'' in 1948, allegedly the first scientific body of work that examined the subject of homosexuality. Mainstream publications started printing their opinions about this formerly taboo subject. <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/mediaresponses.html </ref> <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/kinsey.html </ref>

* Rev. Elder Troy Perry founded the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches in 1968 which served as a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. <ref>http://www.mcccharleston.org/about/troyperry.htm</ref>

*[[Stonewall Riots]] of 1969 marked a turning point within the Civil Rights Era of the United States. New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn and for the first time the gay patrons fought back which started several days of rioting.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html </ref> This bar had been operating illegally by bribing the police and was owned by the [[mafia]]. The riots occurred when the police finally came to shut down the illegal activities occurring at the site.

* American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. <ref> http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/197308.pdf </ref>

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy as crafted by Gen. Colin Powell and approved by Pres. Clinton takes affect in 1993. This measure allows homosexuals to serve in the US military. Sexual orientation will not prohibit anyone from serving though they must not engage in homosexual conduct or openly say they are gay. <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D81F30F933A15754C0A965958260</ref>

* Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 when homosexual couples were granted the same right as heterosexual couples. This right was preceded by years of legal wrangling in the state courts. <ref> http://www.hrc.org/issues/5489.htm </ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law, barring "orientation discrimination", prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agency's Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
A poll reveals that a majority of US citizens<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref> disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditional values.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children by using liberal tactics such as ''tolerance'' or forcing ''diversity'' programs onto children in schools which strongly encourage the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns. As any logical examination of the world would have one conclude, tolerance is an insidious construct which breeds relativism and lack of judgment.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==
An April 2009 CNN poll showed the public evenly divided over the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, with 48% in favor and 47% opposed.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref> Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use [[deceit]], notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

===Presenting outstanding homosexuals as contributors to society===



Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality|homosexual acts]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref> The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.<ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571</ref>

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html Queering the Schools]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Democratic Party

2011-10-04T12:16:27Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* See also */

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is the [[pro-abortion]], higher taxes, anti-gun and big government party, while the [[Republican Party]] is the [[pro-life]], lower taxes, small government party. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today Republicans sometimes call it the "[[Democrat Party]]" as a term of ridicule. There are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress into federal law.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s. They mostly reject [[gay marriage]].

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] was very close until September, when the collapse of the financial system soured the voters on the GOP.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Homosexual rights advocacy

2011-10-04T12:08:28Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Opposition to Gay Rights */ Has to be an oversight, that violates the 14th Amendment

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-10-03T22:27:19Z

GiveMeLiberty: Editing/removing in appropriate descriptions/song

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers; instead one must rely on a love for Christ and prayer.
|1
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU"RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']
|Marilyn Manson
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.
|29
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|-
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pQBDE5Gbg ''Me Against The World'']
|Simple Plan
|As conservatives and Christians, [[liberal bias]] is all around us, in the media for example, trying to pressure us on a bandwagon to be like them and worship at the altar of liberalism and godlessness. It is up to us to stand up for what is right, even if we have to go up against the world.
|
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|
|-
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-10-03T22:25:31Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* You have got to be kidding me */

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but the praise you speak of is "If you ever get annoyed [with, based on earlier lyrics, either your traditional job or the unpleasant commute involved], look at me, I'm self-employed; I love to work at nothing all day." That could be taken as either "I made so much money as an entepreneur that I no longer need to work" or "My official job title is 'Bum'." Neither one of them really expresses admiration for "hard work" in its own right, though the former is certainly a more positive role model than the latter. I do ''like'' the song, but I'm not entirely sanguine about considering it "conservative." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:36, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

== Brothers in Arms - Dure Straits ==

I would like to suggest Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. It's about war and having ones "brother's in arms" in support. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:32, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
:If there is no argument to it's inclusion I'll add it soon. Let me know your thoughts though...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:42, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== YMCA? ==

I'd always heard that the Village People's YMCA was about [[homosexual]] men seducing other men? That doesn't sound very [[conservative]] to me. Is this just a rumor? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:45, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:This was obviously added as a joke, and no one else seems to have realized it! [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 12:25, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::Nope - the song is a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Right. And Antony came to bury Caesar, not to praise him. "It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A. / They have everything that you need to enjoy, / You can hang out with all the boys..." [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 13:32, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It was probably written about more savory activities at the Y but later became identified as a gay anthem. I don't think it's a "conservative song" if it's overwhelmingly associated with homosexuality. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:43, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::The song is a good faith tribute and attempts to redefine it are not factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:10, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Does anyone have any solid sources one way or the other as to what this song means? I tried some brief googling, but didn't turn up anything at all trustworthy. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The band leader said it was a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, and we respect original meaning at ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Awesome. Do you have a source for that I can add?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Really? Have You Looked Into These Songs? ==

I'd just like to say that I think it's really jacked that you're going around and trying to SAY what these songs mean. For example, Metallica is NOT a conservative band. James Hetfield was a heavy drinker until he went to rehab, Kirk Hammett suffered from drug addiction during his teen years, and if you listen to any other song you hear that they are NOT a conservative band.

Furthermore, Journey is NOT a conservative band. Steve Perry openly voted for Obama in 2008. --[[User:Beanna|Beanna]] 20:04, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative ''songs''. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== An idea... ==

I was looking at this list and realised that most of the songs listed here are big hit numbers. I was thinking that it might be interesting to look at whether the more conservative a song is the better it does on the charts. Even though the artist might be liberal it seems there bigger hits are in fact conservative songs! Maybe by charting something like this we could prove that people respond better to the conservative message and perhaps change the minds of some liberal singers. Just an idea. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:31, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:We could add the respective chart ranking to this page and then collate the results by rank and date. Perhaps, like the conservative words, we might even see the same pattern repeated here! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

::Great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:::It'll be a big project though so it'll be awhile for me to collate the results but I fear that we'll find that the majority of new hits are liberal in nature (particulalry coming from M&M and Usher etc) but I think that is because of the "hollywood" influence. Interestingly artists distanced from "fame" have better messages and ''still'' produce amazing hits. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:11, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== From a youngin' ==

Citizen/Soldier by 3 Doors Down. I don't know about the band themselves, but any song that supports the National Guard should be listed here, in my honest option. If no one minds, I'll add it.

== Wish you were here ==

This is a good list of songs, but as far as I know, ''Wish you were here'' (the title track, along with the entire eponymous album) was not dedicated to a conservative president, but rather to ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:19, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that this needs a citation, given that it is so contrary to the conventional story. I've looked for one, but every indication points to it being inspired by Syd Barrett, not a conservative leader (indeed; one would think, Pink Floyd being made up of Englishmen, that it would be a conservative PM, not President.). --[[User:Monty]]

== Two song suggestions ==

Hallowed Be Thy Name - Iron Maiden

1) Like Welcome to the Family, it's about death row, but not anti-death penalty.

2) Multiple references to an afterlife. "Tears they flow but why am I crying?/After all I am not afraid of dying/Don't I believe that there never is an end?" and later in the song: Mark my words believe my soul lives on/Don't worry now that I have gone/I've gone beyond to seek the truth".

3) The very title of the song is derived from the Lord's Prayer, which is also implied to be the protagonist (in the song)'s final words.

Declaration Day - Iced Earth

The whole thing is about the American war for independence, so it's probably a good choice for the list.

I'll add them for the time being, but if most of you think they don't go, I'll take them down.

: Thanks for suggesting them, but I don't see much that is conservative in your first suggestion other than acceptance of an afterlife (or judgment). That's an important message, but some of the religious references seem to be simply an attempt to give the song gravitas. Perhaps others have some insights about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Perhaps it's time to branch out and create a category or essay on "Songs of interest to conservatives" or [[Songs that Conservatives like]].

::I like a lot of songs, even if I would be hard pressed to say why they are "conservative songs". Not every song or book or movie I like is [[Conservative]], and I think it's important to be broad-minded enough not to condemn everything that isn't 100% in line with my beliefs and values.

::In fact, I go even further and say that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are supremely narrow-minded. All the talk about "tolerance" is a one way street with them. They want us to tolerate their radical notions, but they are ready at the drop of a hat to kick us out of their cushy little world any time we offer a different idea.

::You would never hear of a Bible-belt Christian walking up to a famous liberal author and kicking his wine glass over at a picnic, saying, "We don't allow liberals here." (see [[Glen Beck in NYC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:35, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== I don't think Lola qualifies ==

IIRC, it ends with a complete lack of repentance -- "I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola". I don't think that this song qualifies as conservative if it celebrates that which we abhor.

:Our sister project, Wikipedia, says the song "details a romantic encounter between a young man and a transvestite" (hardly a conservative theme). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Overhaul the "Greatest Conservative Songs" ==

I think this is something that needs to happen before this Essay begins to get out of control. GCSs Essay needs to reorganized into some sort of categorical order—be it alphabetical or otherwise—in order to clean up the Essay and to provide clarity to avoid double posting. I will be happy to categorize it alphabetically by either the artist or song. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've just rewritten most of the page. Everything is nearly exactly the same, except for a small amount of rephrasing to keep things grammatically correct. I've added peak chart position for every song, but in the interest of making that data comparable, I've limited it to US chart positions. There are some songs (like Brothers In Arms) which charted well in other countries, but didn't chart at all in the US. I eliminated two duplicate entries - Ballad of the Green Berets, and God's Gonna Cut You Down. Enjoy. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Good work CGoodwin. Maybe we can have the same revision for [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]. [[User:KBarnett|KBarnett]] 15:47, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:::CGoodwin, your tabular format and ranking information is interesting. Well done. But surely ''Amazing Grace'' has been more popular than just about every other song on the list. How should the table reflect that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Billboard popularity only measures against how everything else is selling at the same time. If an song sold 100 copies a week for 20 years, it would never crack the charts. The other thing is that there are over 3000 recorded versions of the song. The highest charting individual version I've found is Elvis's, which reached #79. If you want to reflect a broader historical sense of popularity, I'd suggest doing a personal ranking. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

:::::Great Job CGoodwin! Very clean and will definatly help those looking to post songs to check to see if they are or are not already posted. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 16:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Particle man? Really? ==

I think someone must be sabotaging this page. I fail to see how "Particle man" qualifies as an allegory, rather than fun wordplay around a tune not entirely unlike the Spiderman theme song.

:I have to agree on this one, I looked up what people think is the meaning, and seems its more likely an atheist song then a conservative one. [[User:KenN|KenN]]

== No Johnny Cash? ==

Have there really been no suggestions for Johnny Cash songs here? So many of his works discuss the importance of faith, of accepting Jesus, or praise the values of small town country life over the extravagant lifestyles many liberals seem to push for.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 12:54, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
::I put in a traditional song and gave the Johnny Cash version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I think Man in Black should make the list as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:43, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You could make a good argument for a good percentage of his work. I added Country Trash, mostly because it's a fun favorite of mine, and I'm sure a bunch more of his would fit too.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 00:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

==YMCA==
"YMCA", "In the Navy", "San Francisco", and "Macho Man" are NOT conservative songs. They're celebrations of the gay lifestyle. They never did any conservative songs. Have you actually listened to the words
:This point has already been discussed above. Also, please sign your posts. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, this is my first post here. Seem to have omitted a heading as well. [[User:Nealstar|Nealstar]] 19:22, 19 August 2011 (MST)

== Tenacious D ==

I would like to put Tribute by Tenacious D forward. I know it's a comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:00, 28 August 2011 (BST)

== Deep sixed YMCA by Village People, keep it buried ==

These are not conservative lyrics in the song YMCA: "You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal, '''You can do whatever you feel'''" [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/y-m-c-a-lyrics-village-people/33e3d31bddce747748256df20009b2a5] This is not a conservative video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

I think a lot of the songs listed should be scrapped. This was the most egregious case. For example, how conservative are songs written by long haired guy rockers or homosexual rockers? Shouldn't the authors of the songs have any bearing? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:I withhold judgment on how conservative the song is. As Andy said, further up this page '''"This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative songs. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song."''' [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Andy did not realize the song had the verse: '''"You can do whatever you feel"''' [http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/y-m-c-a-lyrics-village-people/33e3d31bddce747748256df20009b2a5] Definitely not conservative. And please tell me why you think this video is conservative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k Again, not conservative. Staying buried - no resurrection here folks, move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::So, a young man getting in touch with his emotions, crying because he's down in the world, and being hugged by another sympathetic boy is wrong? Duly noted. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:17, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Why don't we wait until Andy has commented as he wanted to keep it in and we should defer to him. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:21, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Does this mean we should go back and analyze ever music video too? In "Alive" by POD, the person is violating the law by not wearing a seatbealt.
:::::And for a song suggestion, "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsWr6mHRqgI Hands Held High]" by Linkin Park. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:44, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Victor Willis, the ''heterosexual'' ex-lead singer of the Village People and writer of "Y.M.C.A." actually did intend the song to be a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, according to an interview from [http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20070802/village_people_070802/ this article]. He "never intended the homosexual innuendo that many fans read into the song," and really the only thing gay about the video posted by User:Conservative is the fact that some of the people in it actually are gay. Did you know that Victor Willis left the band because he was frustrated with the flamboyancy of some of his gay band-mates and with the band's gay image? --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 19:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Your comment is misleading and (perhaps deliberately) ignores the writer's well-known liking for double entendre; the reference in the group's name ("Village People") the gay lifestyle of [[Greenwich Village]], and that (as even Wikipedia concedes) the group was "Originally created to target disco's gay audience". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People]

:::::::I think you need to find another project to join. You're not helping us provide trustworthy information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:07, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== ''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie) ==

The removal makes sense. The song seems to be an ode against private property.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:19, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's hard to say. Guthrie took the side of the laboring man against the (perceived) indifference of the wealthy, at a time when unions had only recently appeared on the scene to provide [[collective bargaining]] power and relieve the masses from exploitation on the heels of the Industrial Revolution. But the line, "This land was made for you and me" could refer either to the [[abolition of private property]] (as advocated by [[Karl Marx]] and the [[Communists]]), or to God's bountiful blessing upon the settlers of the [[New World]].

:Like all great art, this song contains some ambiguity and requires the listener's interpretation. Like "Consider Yourself" (from [[Oliver!]]), there's a mixture of idealistic brotherhood with hint of the sort of knavery we associate with [[Robin Hood]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:58, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
::There is an alternate version that's something like "''This land is my land, '''it isn't your land''''' involving guns and shooting trespassers.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::"An" alternate version? There are dozens of extra verses beyond the 3 we use at Bible camp. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I had a friend that used to sing it. I thought it relevant to the discussion. But you're right, a catchy tune is a catchy tune--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Jerusalem" ==

: I don't think that Jerusalem is a conservative song. We were taught at school that it was a call to arms against industrialization and hence is it is also anti-capitalist, also I don't think that any song Billy Bragg has recorded can be called conservative.--14:20, 20 September 2011 (EDT)[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]]

== You have got to be kidding me ==

Seven Nation Army is not about conservatives and if you knew anything about The White Stripes you would know that they are NOT conservative in the least (I believe Jack White had his wedding conducted by a shaman). Also, in the description of Sympathy for the Devil, I've yet to meet a perfect person, so I would remove that part of the description. Finally, Wouldn't It Be Nice isn't about marriage, it's just about idyllic teenage love, marriage is just incidental. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 09:21, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for noticing the error. It may have been added by a liberal hoaxer. You removed other items such as Fox News contributions to Hussein Obama. I am curious as to why you wouldn't remove it? You've got to be kidding me skit is a little dramatic.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:15, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::I removed the items form FNC b/c I felt they were unimportant to the network in the grand scheme of things and didn't belong in the lead. And yeah, You have got to be kidding me is probably a bit dramatic. As for not editing, I though I couldn't edit, as it was unavailable to me when I posted here. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:25, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-10-03T13:21:45Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* You have got to be kidding me */ new section

Frost/Nixon

2011-10-03T13:15:14Z

GiveMeLiberty: The legality of the bombing of Cambodia is incredibly contentious amongst conservatives and liberals alike

'''''Frost/Nixon''''' is a liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]]. In it Nixon is portrayed as a foul-mouthed drunk. Furthermore, the movie is very deceptive, misrepresenting large portions of the President's interview with journalist David Frost. The famous line "When the President does it, it's not illegal" is included in the movie as part of the interview on the [[Watergate]] incident, while in truth those words were spoken in reference to the bombing of [[Cambodia]].

[[category:Movies]]

Soccer

2011-10-02T20:39:40Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Soccer and socialism */ Taking out ones that do not apply to socialism and/or are only relevant to United States rather than a global perspective

[[Image:2010 World Cup.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Pictured is [[Miroslav Klose]], a star Polish-born player competing for the highly ranked German team, during the 2010 World Cup]]
'''Soccer''' is a popular sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot. Outside the USA, it is generally called "football" (Spanish: ''fútbol'').
In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area. The goal of the game is to kick the ball into the opposing team's goal; each goal gives that team a point and the team with the most points at the end of the 90 minute game is the winner.

==Rules of the Game==
[[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|right|thumb|300px|left|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]
The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a break known as half-time which according to the rules of the game must last less than 20 minutes. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. If a player is injured then the [[referee]] makes up that lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as [[stoppage]] or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in knockout cup games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. In some competitions, the first goal in this period (golden goal) wins the game. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a [[penalty shootout]]. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a [[grass]] (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. The side scoring the most goals is the winner. Infringements include playing the ball with any part of the body other than the feet or head; pushing or blocking an opposing player and stepping outside the playing area while the ball is in play.

Accuracy in kicking is very important to make sure that one can kick the ball around opponents, manage it in tight spaces, and make long passes to other players in better positions. Expert players have trained to kick from a variety of angles, both forward and back and to the side, and also to use their chests and heads to maneuver a high-flying ball.

==Origins==

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]]. Football games have been popular in [[England]] since the [[middle ages]], but the modern game of soccer derives from formalizations of the rules during the mid nineteenth century. The [[Football Association]] (FA) was founded in 1863 and continues to be the game's governing body within the [[UK]]. "Association Football" (later shortened to soccer) meant the version of football approved by the Football Association's rules. The rules were published at [[Cambridge University]] in 1847, as many private schools were playing each other with different rules. In the middle ages the game had no rules. The match was played between villages and the goals were in each village. The game was often violent and was banned by [[Edward III]] and [[Henry IV]] not for its violence but as it distracted archers from military work. Medieval football is still played in the East Midland city of [[Derby]] on [[Shrove Tuesday]].

==Soccer Around the World==
[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In most countries it is the most popular sport or at least among the most popular (the [[United States]] being a notable exception). Though it is often not a high-scoring game, its popularity comes from the often dramatic saves from goalkeepers and incredible shots from skilled players in attempts to score a goal. In the United States soccer was associated with communism during the Thirties, as several communist organizations used soccer in an attempt to recruit recent European immigrants to their cause.

Every four years there is an international competition known as the [[World Cup]], where countries send their best players to compete for the title of best national soccer team. Every four years in Europe there is the European Championship in June and July when the leagues finish which is a 16 team competition for members of UEFA, the European governing body. Each other continent also has a competition, such as the African Nations Cup, which is every two years in January.

Many soccer fans are extremely passionate about their favorite teams, traveling to other countries to support them. Several countries have had problems controlling over-excited fans, with the crowd sometimes spilling onto the pitch, fighting with themselves, disliked referees and even players. [[England]] once had a poor reputation from its soccer [[hooligan]]s who got into drunken fistfights with fans of other teams. This situation has largely changed, with much better behavior at English football matches and considerably increased violence in several other countries, especially [[Italy]].

In most European countries each large town will have at least one football team who play in leagues, which last August to May in most of Europe but March to October in others. Unlike most American sports, the top teams in each league go up a league to be replaced by the last teams in the league above. The top teams in the top division of each European country enter the UEFA Champions League, a league and knockout competition played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays around the season.

==Soccer and socialism==

The nature and rules of soccer very much resemble [[socialism]] in many ways:<ref>http://blog.american.com/?p=16158</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/soccer_the_perfect_socialist_s.html</ref>

* Soccer is very bureaucratic.
* Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals.
* [[Union]] [[strikes]], even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer.
* Participants are known to behave dishonestly and illegally and act against the interests of their team in order to gain financially themselves.<ref>http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/62773.html</ref>

==Great Players==

* [[Ferenc Puskas]], a forward for [[Real Madrid]] and [[Hungary]] in the 1950s, introduced 'total football' and destroyed the old-fashioned English team of the time.
* [[Lev Yashin]] of the USSR in the 1960s is reputed to be the best-ever goalkeeper.
* [[Pele]], [[Brazil]]ian player active from 1956-1974, often considered to be the greatest soccer player to ever kick the ball.
* [[Alfredo di Stéfano]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder who played for [[Real Madrid]]. considered by Maradona to be the greatest.
* [[Bobby Moore]], captain of England in the 1966 World Cup Finals and one of the finest ever center halves.
* [[George Best]], of [[Manchester United]] and [[Northern Ireland]] in the 1960s, was possibly the best player never to have played in the World Cup Finals.
* [[Franz Beckenbauer]] played for [[West Germany]] in the 1960s and 70s. Defenders rarely gain the limelight in football but Beckenbauer's performances against the great teams of England in 1970 and Holland in 1974 were exceptional.
* [[Johann Cruyff]], captain of Holland in 1974 and 1978: why his Dutch team's brand of Total Football never won them the World Cup is an enduring mystery.
* [[Diego Maradona]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder of the 1980s, often mentioned alongside Pele as one of the greatest.
* [[Zinedine Zidane]], [[French]] player, retired shortly after the World Cup final match between France and [[Italy]] in 2006.
* [[Cristiano Ronaldo]], a [[Portuguese]] contemporary player for [[Real Madrid]].
* [[Lionel Messi]], [[Argentina]]n forward, currently plays for [[Barcelona]].

==A note on terminology==

{{football meaning}} In many other languages, a [[phonics|phonetic]] equivalent to the English word "football," such as the Portuguese word "futbol" is used to denote the sport.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Don Imus

2011-10-02T19:33:34Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Just say what he said */ new section

Howard Stern being a conservative or not a conservative isn't relevant here. Also, I don't think it's necessary to print what Imus said in here. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, censored crap. I'm done with this ****** place. [[User:Hamtandrus|Hamtandrus]] 00:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The article says that an organization made the racial slur, not Imus? I thought it was Imus? Were we misinformed by the MSM? I genuinely thought Imus had called them "nappy headed hos" on air? [[User:50something|50something]] 12:48, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whitewash ==
I reverted the edit "racist and sexist comments he made" because it is a matter of opinion, and because Imus only made some of the comments. Imus was comparing blacks to blacks, and women to women, so it is not obvious what is racist or sexist about the comments. I'll put in a link to the original complaint so people can read it for themselves. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:56, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the point is that he violated a taboo, not that he said anything actually racist or sexist. Some people are "gunning for" various -ists, to discredit them (see [[Politically correct speech]].

:He was popular for his rough jabs, like [[Don Rickles]] was, but he stepped on the wrong toes this time. Advertisers starting pulling out, and that's what networks respond to. Good thing he didn't call the advertisers "niggardly", i.e., tightwads, or someone might have accused him of "using the n-word". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

There you go again, Poor Ed, setting up straw dogs of imaginary events that never happened to criticize liberals in your akward way. Niggardly? Pathetic. Where I come from calling a woman a whore is not acceptable. Obviously in your universe it is just an amusing joke, and criticism of it is termed a "witch hunt". And if you don't know why calling an African-American woman "nappy headed" is racist, you are not qualified to edit your own diary, not to mention an "encyclopedia".
:It's perfectly acceptable in the billion dollar industry of Rap music, which CBS profits from distributing to young folks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:54, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I see. Because Rap music commits an abomination, it is okay for you to do the same in Conservapedia. Hmmm. NitramNos
:huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:20, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that putting in "nappy-headed hos" without the context is a little misleading. Imus wasn't really calling them whores, but commenting on their looks. I put in a link to the original complaint with a partial transcript. Let the reader read it and decide for himself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:''Imus wasn't really calling them whores, but commenting on their looks.'' You mean he was just saying they ''looked'' like whores? And somehow that's OK? ''It's perfectly acceptable in the billion dollar industry of Rap music'' And that's the standard we should hold people to? Gentlemen, especially as Christian men, I'm hoping you have higher personal standards than this. I think there's a lot of good in Imus, and I'm not sure he should have been fired, but his comment was unacceptable, period. I do think we should include the text of the comment in the article, along with more of the transcript if [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels that's necessary for context, so that readers understand the controversy. I think it would be also useful to include information about the Imus ranch, his work for kids with cancer, his vegan/natural living outlook, and so on to show his more positive side.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:29, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Feichineejits ==

Blocked user. Irish name for F____ idiots. Vandal and troll. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:52, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Why are Don Imus' comments called "offensive" but Jesse Jackson's New York City comments are called "allegedly offensive"? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Just say what he said ==

Don't call them offensive, don't call them anything. Just say what he said and then people's reactions. Simplest thing in the world tbh and it allows the reader to decide whether or not he's a racist or a sexist for themselves. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 15:33, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Don Imus

2011-10-02T19:31:43Z

GiveMeLiberty: Don't characterize what he said, just say it and let the reader decide if they are indeed offensive

[[Image:Imus don standard.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Don Imus''' is an [[American]] radio talk-show host, host of ''Imus in the Morning'', known for his "shock jock" speaking manner. Many prominent politicians appeared on his show.

A [[liberal]] organization called [[Media Matters for America]]<ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007. </ref> publicized comments<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011</ref> made by Imus, referring to the [[Rutgers]] and [[Tennessee]] female basketball team players as "nappy headed hos" among other things. [[African American]] activists [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] joined in, and said that the comments were offensive, joined by numerous other African-Americans and many women. On April 12th 2007, [[CBS]] canceled Don Imus's show.

Don Imus has since been broadcasting his show on WABC-AM in the mornings.<ref>http://wabcradio.com/staff.asp</ref>

Imus's show currently appears on the [[Fox Business Network]].
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Imus, Don}}

[[Category:Radio Shows]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Fox News Channel

2011-10-02T19:25:34Z

GiveMeLiberty: Undo revision 923845 by Jpatt (talk) You're missing the point, what I am saying is that it's not really that important to Fox News

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. For over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

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

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

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

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

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

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

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

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

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===

Talk to any Fox News-hating liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- ''"Fox is not Fair & Balanced,"'' ''"Rightwing propaganda."'' One network, Fox News, has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek -- you get a total of five [[Token conservative | so-called conservative]] personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Ed Henry]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

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

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

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}
=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>
=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== Also See ==

* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''

== External Links ==

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

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

[[Category: Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

Fox News Channel

2011-10-02T18:35:31Z

GiveMeLiberty: Soooo, just gonna pass up any other piece of it...founding, history, milestones, and talk about donations?

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-09-30T16:14:04Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* This page should be deleted... */ new section

United Kingdom

2011-09-29T16:34:58Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Bestiality and godless Britain */ Surely you need more than a single blurb in a Swedish newspaper to say that the nation is nothing but a animal-sodomizing hellhole

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =60,587,300 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning" [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote:
{{cquote|Few will have missed the shocking reports of the riots seen recently throughout [[England]]. Gangs of young adults and teenagers have been on the rampage, smashing windows, looting shops, and burning cars and warehouses. Even large deployments of police have been unable to contain them.

Many have been asking why all this is happening. Some reply that it is due to deep anger and frustration amongst youth, who feel they have no future, no possibility of getting a job and no stake in society. Others claim it is simply rebellion against authority and wanton criminality. Conservatives point to the disruption of family life, the promotion of single motherhood, the lack of discipline in schools and the ‘rights culture’. Liberals blame the lack of equality in society and say the answer lies in providing the young with more opportunities and better education. While there is some truth in all these views, they all fail to address the deeper issues and the true root cause of Britain’s moral and social decline.

What is happening in England is the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting [[God]] and His [[Word]]. Instead of believing what God has said, people readily believe the modern academics and politicians, who assure us that the [[Bible]] is no more than a [http://creation.com/genesis-myth-or-history book of myths] and that we can forge a better society based on [[secularism]]. Accepting this view has led to there being no final authority, no absolute basis for [[moralit]]y and no clarity about who or what we are...

When I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s, the Christian thinking and values of previous generations were still evident. General behaviour, truthfulness and respect were still considered more important than academic or material success. This was based on the view that we were made in the image of God, and good character was necessary to preserve this...

In contrast to all this, much of today’s educational system places little if any value on such biblical ideas. This is not surprising; if even many church leaders claim Genesis is not real history, then original sin is but a myth. In fact, it is quite likely that the ‘progressive’ educationist will take a different view simply because they think that, if the Bible teaches something, it is probably wrong. The teachers know that they themselves lie, and the head teacher lies—so why should they expect their pupils not to lie? Indeed, a recent New Scientist article actually argued, from an [[evolution|evolutionary]] standpoint, that [http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy lying in our personal, professional and social lives is a strategy for survival!] The objective of education is no longer to equip young people to serve in the community, but to maximize their ‘potential for self-fulfillment’. The great heroes of the modern age are not those who have sacrificially given themselves for others, but those who have fought for themselves and their ‘rights’. Humanists, in defiance of the true history in Genesis 3, assert the doctrine of the intrinsic goodness of humanity and see no need to teach right and wrong.<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>}}

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Video game industry

2011-09-29T16:20:51Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Examples */ From what I have heard, it is one of the most anti-academic games on the market...

The '''video game industry''' is a major entertainment industry that has over $20 billion in annual sales.<ref>http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100114.html</ref> Video game sales surpassed [[Hollywood]] revenue in the year 2007.<ref name="Video">http://seekingalpha.com/article/89124-the-video-game-industry-an-18-billion-entertainment-juggernaut</ref>

==Video Games and the Spreading of Liberal Values==
The video game industry has a long history of unintentionally spreading liberal values and extremist ideals to children.

====Examples====
*Overusing profanity (Many games rated "T" for "teen")
*Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players)
*Presenting sanitized versions of other religions, but open hostility to Christianity (''God of War'')
*Allowing players to be terrorists and perform terrorism (''Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'')
*Allowing players to have fornication with prostitutes (All ''Grand Theft Auto'' video games)
*Welcoming to more violence, such as providing bonus points for extra murders (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')
*Over reliance on violence than story (''Gears of War'')
*Overtones of [[Hollywood Values]] (''Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony'')
*Godless protagonists, religious antagonists. (''Sins of a Solar Empire'')
*Encourages radical terrorism (''Red Faction: Guerrilla'')
*Promotes idolatry (''Black and White'')
*Communist themes (''Red Alert'')

{{Liberalism}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:video Games]]

Gun control

2011-09-27T18:24:24Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Constitutional Debate */

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, even though guns are typically acquired for defensive or sporting purposes. Studies show that more gun ownership results in less crime, but [[liberals]] push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward. Accordingly, the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns somehow leads to less crime, even though guns are primarily defensive weapons.<ref>People who support gun control claim or pretend that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have firearms.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]
*[[Second Amendment]]
*[[Gun Control in Nazi Germany]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Zombies

2011-09-27T18:00:35Z

GiveMeLiberty:

'''Zombies''' are creatures that once were living, but now are known as the living dead, feeding on brains (and sometimes corpses depending on genre) according to movie folklore. They have their origins in voodoo folklore, in which voodoo priests would raise the dead to do their bidding. Popular zombie movies include ''Night of the Living Dead,'' ''Dawn of the Dead,'' and, more recently, ''28 days later.'' According to [[Bob Hope]] in the movie ''The Ghost Breakers'', they are like [[Democrats]] because of their penchant for blind following. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmS6JrWSPU&feature=related]

[[Category: Mythology]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]

Talk:Soccer

2011-09-27T17:31:49Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Reasons for being socialist */

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the [[World Cup]], [[FIFA]] and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: Welcome to the soccer team. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great Players ==

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Socialist sport? ==

It seems to me that calling soccer a socialist sport is a bit subjective. I disagree with everything socialist, but I enjoy watching soccer more than I do football. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 16:54, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Are you the mountain bike guy? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Anyway, as to Soccer.....The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the game...er, match. It will be 0-0. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

::I'd rather see the socialism section shortened, with a longer version moved to [[Essay:Soccer and socialism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

This socialism thing really gotta go. It's logically incoherent, and here's why:
The No Hand rule doesn't mean taxes, come on... It just puts in an extra challenge. All sports are challenges, not using your hand is the key challenge in soccer.
The Off-Side rule prohibits a player from just standing around near the opposing side's goal, rather than actually working. Besides there's an offside rule in Ice Hockey as well.
"The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming." This one is just stupid. The efforts to avoid frequent stops is just to enhance the intensity.
"Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries." Yes, when the national associations play, they are tied to their nations, but most of the soccer games played are between clubs, not nations, and these clubs are just as commercial as any other professional sports club. There's no more bureaucracy in FIFA than in the MLB.
"The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual." This is false. The reason for the repeated failures of the US teams at the World Cup is caused by too little competition in the North American region, with only 2 strong teams, US and Mexico.
"The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award." I honestly thought the World Cup trophy looked more like the NLF trophy.
"In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game." That is a socialist attitude used exclusively in the US, and it is NOT part of the rules given by FIFA.
"Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals." Much like the Wild Card Race in MLB.
"Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer." Yes, and that never happened in any American sports such as Baseball, hockey or NFL... Oh wait...
"Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights." Soccer riots are rare these days, and they just use soccer as a polariser, they could have used any other sport too.

:The connection between soccer and socialism is ridiculous. The section simply detracts from the article. Just because you don't happen to like something doesn't make it socialist. [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 01:20, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)

::Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] and get back to me BC.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

:::You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::::Yes, you lost me there ''sport''. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there. ==

Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons for being socialist ==

Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do players or drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. If no one objects I will remove them. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Soccer

2011-09-27T17:31:10Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Reasons for being socialist */

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the [[World Cup]], [[FIFA]] and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: Welcome to the soccer team. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great Players ==

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Socialist sport? ==

It seems to me that calling soccer a socialist sport is a bit subjective. I disagree with everything socialist, but I enjoy watching soccer more than I do football. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 16:54, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Are you the mountain bike guy? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Anyway, as to Soccer.....The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the game...er, match. It will be 0-0. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

::I'd rather see the socialism section shortened, with a longer version moved to [[Essay:Soccer and socialism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

This socialism thing really gotta go. It's logically incoherent, and here's why:
The No Hand rule doesn't mean taxes, come on... It just puts in an extra challenge. All sports are challenges, not using your hand is the key challenge in soccer.
The Off-Side rule prohibits a player from just standing around near the opposing side's goal, rather than actually working. Besides there's an offside rule in Ice Hockey as well.
"The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming." This one is just stupid. The efforts to avoid frequent stops is just to enhance the intensity.
"Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries." Yes, when the national associations play, they are tied to their nations, but most of the soccer games played are between clubs, not nations, and these clubs are just as commercial as any other professional sports club. There's no more bureaucracy in FIFA than in the MLB.
"The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual." This is false. The reason for the repeated failures of the US teams at the World Cup is caused by too little competition in the North American region, with only 2 strong teams, US and Mexico.
"The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award." I honestly thought the World Cup trophy looked more like the NLF trophy.
"In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game." That is a socialist attitude used exclusively in the US, and it is NOT part of the rules given by FIFA.
"Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals." Much like the Wild Card Race in MLB.
"Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer." Yes, and that never happened in any American sports such as Baseball, hockey or NFL... Oh wait...
"Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights." Soccer riots are rare these days, and they just use soccer as a polariser, they could have used any other sport too.

:The connection between soccer and socialism is ridiculous. The section simply detracts from the article. Just because you don't happen to like something doesn't make it socialist. [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 01:20, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)

::Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] and get back to me BC.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

:::You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::::Yes, you lost me there ''sport''. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there. ==

Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons for being socialist ==

Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. If no one objects I will remove them. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Soccer

2011-09-27T17:24:41Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Reasons for being socialist */ new section

Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].

----
*most popular sport in the world
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*called "football" everywhere but North America?
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Fun fact: "calcio" also means calcium! [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 17:42, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to World Football). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hello, soccer is a sub-category of sports. Generally speaking, we try to move materials to sub-categories when they exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:04, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Name==
Why is this sport being called soccer, when in pretty much all of the world it is called football? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because this is an American website. It ''is'' noted in the article that it's called "football" outside the U.S. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, I didn't realise that. So everything here is written from the point of view of the United States? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Do you see the Conservapedia logo on the upper left? That should sufficiently answer your question. Of course, this is little different from Wikipedia, which typically uses American spelling, terms and phrases. (When they try to be world-minded over there, it just ends up being silly or confusing. The WP article about soccer is titled "Association football." People are going to look at that rarely used phrase and think, "What the heck is that?") [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Etymology ==

The suggestion that the game is called "football" not because the ball is kicked with the foot but because it is played "on foot" rather than on horseback is a myth. It is a myth which has gained popularity in reason years, especially on the internet, but citing a website which puts this theory forward does not stop it being a myth. See for example [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960509 this] etymology website which states that the reason it was named football was because of kicking the ball.

The argument in the previously cited [http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fa-cup/biography/history-of-football source] is that football developed in the middle ages as "a game played by ordinary people, as distinct from the team games of the nobility which were played on horseback". This would make some sense, ''if'' there were any examples of team ball games played on horseback during this period. There were not. The only notable equine ball game is polo, which was played in the middle east since ancient times, but not in the English speaking world until the 19th century, several centuries after the first use of the word "football". Medieval and early modern equine sports in Europe were largely variants on jousting or combat, which did not involve balls. There were numerous ball games, all played on foot, such as tennis, croquet, bowls and stoolball (the origin of cricket). Since football was the only game which involved kicking the ball, this is the most probable reason for the origin of the name.

However, since there is disagreement on this issue, and this is likely to continue, it is probably better to keep any mention of the origin of the word "football" out of the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 14:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Changes==

I rewrote a large portion of the article to remove the redundant facts. In a short article, the information about soccer and football being the same game was repeated three times. As was the rule about not using hands. I hope this helps. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 15:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, but there are several more cases with the ball in play. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can you please give me any example of when a player is allowed to use his hands while the ball is in play? And also, if you want to remove or rework that phrase, fine. But why do you revert the entire change to add back in the redundant passages? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Those "redundant passages" make more clear the problem of hands. With the clock runing any player can touch the ball with hands in several cases like: corners, penalties, side throws (saque de banda), goal kick, etc. (Sorry, I am not familiar with the correct name in English.) It has to be clair that non intentional touch is also permitted. That Does not appear in your edits. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The clock running and the ball in play are two different things altogether. During a corner, or a throw or any of the other examples you've noted, the ball is not in play. If you and I were on opposite teams, and I got a throw in, you can't make a play on the ball until it leaves my hands. That's what I mean by in play. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see your point and agree with it. Now you have to say the same thing in the article; It was you who start talking about "ball in play"; before it was more general; please make clear both cases. OK? Also: ''It has to be clear that non intentional touch is also permitted.'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Agreed, I'll start on that as soon as I have the time. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 16:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Joaquín and Nate, you seen to be working the most on this article. Can I make a suggestion? We should have a section with Rules (this would be a good place for the Soccer Pitch image) and then another section with world popularity, the [[World Cup]], [[FIFA]] and great players. Unfortunately I don't think I know enough about the sport to make significant contributions. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: Welcome to the soccer team. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great Players ==

I've tried to make this more representative. Any other suggestions? (Alberto di Stefano? Bobby Charlton? Gordon Banks? Bobby Moore? Michel Platini?) And what about the pre-war era? I imagine most of the names there would come from English or Scottish club football. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Socialist sport? ==

It seems to me that calling soccer a socialist sport is a bit subjective. I disagree with everything socialist, but I enjoy watching soccer more than I do football. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 16:54, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Are you the mountain bike guy? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

:Anyway, as to Soccer.....The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the game...er, match. It will be 0-0. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:23, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

::I'd rather see the socialism section shortened, with a longer version moved to [[Essay:Soccer and socialism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

This socialism thing really gotta go. It's logically incoherent, and here's why:
The No Hand rule doesn't mean taxes, come on... It just puts in an extra challenge. All sports are challenges, not using your hand is the key challenge in soccer.
The Off-Side rule prohibits a player from just standing around near the opposing side's goal, rather than actually working. Besides there's an offside rule in Ice Hockey as well.
"The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming." This one is just stupid. The efforts to avoid frequent stops is just to enhance the intensity.
"Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries." Yes, when the national associations play, they are tied to their nations, but most of the soccer games played are between clubs, not nations, and these clubs are just as commercial as any other professional sports club. There's no more bureaucracy in FIFA than in the MLB.
"The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual." This is false. The reason for the repeated failures of the US teams at the World Cup is caused by too little competition in the North American region, with only 2 strong teams, US and Mexico.
"The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award." I honestly thought the World Cup trophy looked more like the NLF trophy.
"In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game." That is a socialist attitude used exclusively in the US, and it is NOT part of the rules given by FIFA.
"Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals." Much like the Wild Card Race in MLB.
"Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer." Yes, and that never happened in any American sports such as Baseball, hockey or NFL... Oh wait...
"Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights." Soccer riots are rare these days, and they just use soccer as a polariser, they could have used any other sport too.

:The connection between soccer and socialism is ridiculous. The section simply detracts from the article. Just because you don't happen to like something doesn't make it socialist. [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 01:20, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

American sports are the most socialist of all! Hear me out, please. First of all, the worst teams get first pick at the best players in the draft. If this isn't Socialist, I don't know what is. And this is exclusively used by all four major sports in the United States. In Soccer, it's a free market, with teams able to bid as high as they want for the best players with little regulation or intervention by their respective leagues. Of course, this creates a lack of parity such that leagues tend to be dominated by a small subset of teams (see: Barca/Madrid, ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal, etc.). Of course, I think the American system is better, as it gives all teams a better chance to compete. (Note: THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME A SOCIALIST.) In a way, sports exhibit possibly the ONLY proper application of "socialist" policies, and it only works because of the small scale of sporting leagues. Jeez, there are so many more examples it's ridiculous. Like this: The NBA, NHL, and NFL all have salary caps, which are designed to ensure super rich teams can't dominate year after year. The NBA has a "soft" cap, which means they can have payrolls above the salary cap, but for every dollar the Lakers spend above the salary cap, they have to pay a "luxury tax" which then gets distributed to teams with lower payrolls. For Heaven's sake, it's a "tax" that goes to less wealthy teams! It's LITERALLY designed to "spread the wealth." So, in summary, while socialism is certainly not something that can work on a national scale, it has and does work in American sports. So for the sake of not insulting the intelligence of sports fans who happen to read this site, I suggest removing this section entirely. Thanks. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 5:16, July 06, 2011 (PDT)

::Here's what you should know. Liberalism is a waste of words. Review the chart [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/basketball-play.html] and get back to me BC.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

:::You're right about liberalism, but I don't think I understand your point. Besides not refuting or arguing any of my points, I think you're just implying I'm a lib because I know about basketball. You're wrong. Basketball fans tend to be libs because many of them are black (who vote overwhelmingly for dems). I'm neither black nor liberal, so your whole point is moot. Either way, MLB also has a luxury tax (they call it a "competitive balance tax") and a revenue sharing program that works very similarly to the NBA. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:21, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::I understand your point- American sports are the most socialist. We are not going to remove the reference to soccer because of your argument. Also, when blacks only make up 14% of the population, the popularity of basketball reaches far beyond skin color. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:28, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I don't mind if you don't remove it. I'm just content with you acknowledging I'm right. But you seem to have a very limited knowledge of statistics, so I won't try to beat it into you. If you want to think that only 14% of basketball fans are black simply because 14% of the population is, I won't stop you. Do you think 14% of all sports' fans are black? Nascar? Tennis? I seriously hope you don't think that. I will say one last time that if anyone with the most basic knowledge of sports read this article, they would laugh hysterically like I did. [[User:Ballncheney|Ballncheney]] 12:46, July 07, 2011 (PDT)

::::::Yes, you lost me there ''sport''. Sorry I don't understand your rant. What do you expect, I'm a little slow. Great job on reducing your reply to a few sentences. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:11, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Where the socialism thing came from and why it's there. ==

Let me explain where the socialism section came from. I had seen on the main page that day, there was a front page news entry from a blog (possibly two or three blogs) comparing soccer to socialism. I don't remember if the blogs were being serious or satirical, but it was on the front page of Conservapedia. I then happened to stumble on the Soccer article and noticed it had been changed to "a popular Socialist football sport" with no explanation given. As the front page gets replaced with new news, I took the Socialism into its own section, sourcing the original blogs, to avoid the Soccer article not making sense and sounding silly. As this has become quite a topic for debate, I just thought I should mention what the section is about, and where it came from, before we make any decisions. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 00:22, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons for being socialist ==

Alright, I'm new here, so please be understanding. I'm not sure how some of the reasons listed even begin to make sense. The number of words necessary to play soccer? What about baseball or NASCAR? Do drivers need an extensive vocabulary in either of these sports? I think that, and the fact that trophies going to everyone seems to happen in all youth sports in general make it a bit contrived. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 13:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality

2011-09-27T17:11:12Z

GiveMeLiberty: The entry no longer states that, it merely points out that witnesses said that it was a motive and that it drew national attention

This list includes many examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[homosexuality]]:
# Wikipedia Homosexual agenda by its editors is clearly visible.
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, the [[Homosexuality_and_Murders|prevalence of murder in the homosexual community]], and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia's article on the British Actor Sir Alec Guinness repeats a malicious story that has been proven false to suggest that he was a homosexual.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life Wikipedia]</ref> It then suggests that the biography on Guinness by Piers Paul Read confirms that he was bi-sexual. This too is false, although Read examines the rumors and speculates as to Guinness' feelings, there is absolutely no proof that Guinness was homosexual or bi-sexual. Speculation is largely contrieved from his knowing several British actors and directors who were and a rumor started by a woman who mistook John Gielgud as Guinness.
# Wikipedia's article on Homosexual behavior in animals is hopelessly misleading. Even though [[animal]]s cannot be considered [[homosexual]], Wikipedia wants the public to believe that animals make a conscience decision for same-sex relations by affection/bonding, and parenting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&oldid=422575116] This [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] is debunked by Conservapedia.
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>

==References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Soccer

2011-09-27T17:01:11Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Soccer and socialism */ Surely this was an oversight? The two look nothing alike

[[Image:2010 World Cup.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Pictured is [[Miroslav Klose]], a star Polish-born player competing for the highly ranked German team, during the 2010 World Cup]]
'''Soccer''' is a popular sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot. Outside the USA, it is generally called "football" (Spanish: ''fútbol'').
In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area. The goal of the game is to kick the ball into the opposing team's goal; each goal gives that team a point and the team with the most points at the end of the 90 minute game is the winner.

==Rules of the Game==
[[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|right|thumb|300px|left|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]
The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a break known as half-time which according to the rules of the game must last less than 20 minutes. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. If a player is injured then the [[referee]] makes up that lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as [[stoppage]] or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in knockout cup games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. In some competitions, the first goal in this period (golden goal) wins the game. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a [[penalty shootout]]. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]].

The game is played on a [[grass]] (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.
<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref>
A goal is scored when the ([[spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. The side scoring the most goals is the winner. Infringements include playing the ball with any part of the body other than the feet or head; pushing or blocking an opposing player and stepping outside the playing area while the ball is in play.

Accuracy in kicking is very important to make sure that one can kick the ball around opponents, manage it in tight spaces, and make long passes to other players in better positions. Expert players have trained to kick from a variety of angles, both forward and back and to the side, and also to use their chests and heads to maneuver a high-flying ball.

==Origins==

The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "Association Football", <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' </ref>, much like "rugger" is slang for [[rugby|rugby]]. Football games have been popular in [[England]] since the [[middle ages]], but the modern game of soccer derives from formalizations of the rules during the mid nineteenth century. The [[Football Association]] (FA) was founded in 1863 and continues to be the game's governing body within the [[UK]]. "Association Football" (later shortened to soccer) meant the version of football approved by the Football Association's rules. The rules were published at [[Cambridge University]] in 1847, as many private schools were playing each other with different rules. In the middle ages the game had no rules. The match was played between villages and the goals were in each village. The game was often violent and was banned by [[Edward III]] and [[Henry IV]] not for its violence but as it distracted archers from military work. Medieval football is still played in the East Midland city of [[Derby]] on [[Shrove Tuesday]].

==Soccer Around the World==
[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]
It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game". Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In most countries it is the most popular sport or at least among the most popular (the [[United States]] being a notable exception). Though it is often not a high-scoring game, its popularity comes from the often dramatic saves from goalkeepers and incredible shots from skilled players in attempts to score a goal. In the United States soccer was associated with communism during the Thirties, as several communist organizations used soccer in an attempt to recruit recent European immigrants to their cause.

Every four years there is an international competition known as the [[World Cup]], where countries send their best players to compete for the title of best national soccer team. Every four years in Europe there is the European Championship in June and July when the leagues finish which is a 16 team competition for members of UEFA, the European governing body. Each other continent also has a competition, such as the African Nations Cup, which is every two years in January.

Many soccer fans are extremely passionate about their favorite teams, traveling to other countries to support them. Several countries have had problems controlling over-excited fans, with the crowd sometimes spilling onto the pitch, fighting with themselves, disliked referees and even players. [[England]] once had a poor reputation from its soccer [[hooligan]]s who got into drunken fistfights with fans of other teams. This situation has largely changed, with much better behavior at English football matches and considerably increased violence in several other countries, especially [[Italy]].

In most European countries each large town will have at least one football team who play in leagues, which last August to May in most of Europe but March to October in others. Unlike most American sports, the top teams in each league go up a league to be replaced by the last teams in the league above. The top teams in the top division of each European country enter the UEFA Champions League, a league and knockout competition played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays around the season.

==Soccer and socialism==

The nature and rules of soccer very much resemble [[socialism]] in many ways:<ref>http://blog.american.com/?p=16158</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/soccer_the_perfect_socialist_s.html</ref>

* The "off-sides" rule prohibits using certain aggressive ("unfair") tactics in the game.
* Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries.
* The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual.
* In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game.
* Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals.
* [[Union]] [[strikes]], even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer.
* Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.
* Participants are known to behave dishonestly and illegally and act against the interests of their team in order to gain financially themselves.<ref>http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/62773.html</ref>
* Soccer coaches only need a vocabulary of about 100 words to coach their teams <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8448287/How-to-coach-a-football-team-with-100-words.html</ref>, which is reminiscent of socialist pandering to the lowest common denominator. At least twice as many ''conservative'' words alone originated in the 20th century.

==Great Players==

* [[Ferenc Puskas]], a forward for [[Real Madrid]] and [[Hungary]] in the 1950s, introduced 'total football' and destroyed the old-fashioned English team of the time.
* [[Lev Yashin]] of the USSR in the 1960s is reputed to be the best-ever goalkeeper.
* [[Pele]], [[Brazil]]ian player active from 1956-1974, often considered to be the greatest soccer player to ever kick the ball.
* [[Alfredo di Stéfano]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder who played for [[Real Madrid]]. considered by Maradona to be the greatest.
* [[Bobby Moore]], captain of England in the 1966 World Cup Finals and one of the finest ever center halves.
* [[George Best]], of [[Manchester United]] and [[Northern Ireland]] in the 1960s, was possibly the best player never to have played in the World Cup Finals.
* [[Franz Beckenbauer]] played for [[West Germany]] in the 1960s and 70s. Defenders rarely gain the limelight in football but Beckenbauer's performances against the great teams of England in 1970 and Holland in 1974 were exceptional.
* [[Johann Cruyff]], captain of Holland in 1974 and 1978: why his Dutch team's brand of Total Football never won them the World Cup is an enduring mystery.
* [[Diego Maradona]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder of the 1980s, often mentioned alongside Pele as one of the greatest.
* [[Zinedine Zidane]], [[French]] player, retired shortly after the World Cup final match between France and [[Italy]] in 2006.
* [[Cristiano Ronaldo]], a [[Portuguese]] contemporary player for [[Real Madrid]].
* [[Lionel Messi]], [[Argentina]]n forward, currently plays for [[Barcelona]].

==A note on terminology==

{{football meaning}} In many other languages, a [[phonics|phonetic]] equivalent to the English word "football," such as the Portuguese word "futbol" is used to denote the sport.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sports]]
[[Category:Football soccer]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

United Kingdom

2011-09-27T16:53:28Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* Education */

Talk:Nazi Party

2011-09-26T23:37:25Z

GiveMeLiberty: /* No mention of nationalism? */ new section

==Atheism==

How can the Nazi's be largely atheist/pagan if 50% claimed a form of nature worship/paganism and 40% Hitler (whatever that means) and the rest (100-50-40=10) be atheist? Plus, can we get a better reference because I have done several google searches for this survey and can't find it using keywords from the citation.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 19:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

*Well, you are an editor, Lynus, add all the citations you want to support the material. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Hey TK, need some advice. If I find a reference that doesn't describe what it purports to describe what should I do? I got accused of censorship by Andy for deleting a reference that doesn't address the actual topic he says it does. What exactly is "censorship" to the Admins here? In this page's case would I be justified in taking out the atheism part but leaving in pagan due to the obvious fact that according to the blurbs own words only 10% were atheist? Thx --[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

::*'''!''' Well, some might think you are new, and of course needing to prove credibility, Linus. Personally I would search for sources that back the material already written, before looking for sources that dispute it. As one builds a record of reliable edits, and ''"substantive contributions"'' to this project, branching out to catching mis-applied citations, or adding further ones to improve articles will be tolerated more than a new editor's changes would be. That help? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:30, 3 January 2009 (EST)

:: Yes TK that did help, thank you for the polite response.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::*The myth that the Nazis are some kind of polar opposite to the Communists, needs to be squelched. They are both totalitarian and socialist.

::::*The only possible basis for denying this is to assume that "socialist" only applies to Marxism, but this is false. [[von Mises]] explains it all in his books. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I wonder why a Conservative - i.e. Right-wing, you're in the brilliant US of A after all - source would try and pass Hitler, one of the most detestable human beings ever to have lived, off as "Communist" or "Marxist". Come on guys, that's a joke, and a bad one at that. Hitlers early funding came from big business because of the ANTI-Communist agenda he held. The Nazi's deployed 100 more divisions on the Eastern Front than in Normandy, even as the US was landing on the beaches. In a 250-odd division army, that's a helluva difference. He was anti-Communist, and on the Right. You can't really consider yourselves the "trustworthy" encyclopedia with torrid filth like that lying around, can you?
:Two things you need to do, Mark033: the first is that you need to read and compare the 1922 Nazi Party Platform with chapter 4 of the Communist Manifesto. Maybe you'll learn something from simple reading. The second thing is that you need to sign your postings with four tildes "~". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:02, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

So if the political spectrum theory is wrong , the Nazis where not left wing either.... [[User:Machine13|Machine13]] 12:51, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name misconception ==

I suggest the following being somehow worked into the article:

A common misconception is that the word "Nazi" comes from '''''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische''. This would be an [[acronym]] for the [[German|German language]] compound word, formed from the words ''national'' and ''sozialistische''. However, abbreviating ''sozialistische'' as ''zi'' would be illogical. The true source of the term "Nazi" is the pronunciation of ''nationalsozialistische'', which in German is '''nah-tse'''-oh-NAL-zo-shi-al-ist-uh-shuh.

[[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== new name needed ==

The article would be much more useful to users if it was named "Nazi Party" or "NSDAP". Almost no book uses the full name in English, and the Germans almost always use NSDAP. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== leadership ==

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941-- so their role cuts both ways and diminishes any claim that they led the effort. Ieuan is right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Have to point out a couple of things. For a start the US wasn't financing the war for the UK and USSR but instead extended a series of lease-loans. The difference is subtle but very important (see below). It isn't until after WWII finished that the US extended direct financial assistance, which in Britain's case was a loan for $4.34 billion in 1945, and was finally repaid by Britain on Friday 29th December 2006, with repayments having started back in 1950. The final payment made on the loan was £43 million.

As for the timeline, FDR was desperate to help in the European conflict but also understood that he had to keep the US out of the European conflict during 1939 and 1940, because when Britain declared war on Germany he was still struggling to deal with the Depression and its effects. The simple fact was that until the Depression had been dealt with (or at least the scaffolding that would deal with it was in embedded, which happened in late 1940) and the economy stabilised the US simply couldn't have afforded to go to war (the uncertainty and volatility generated by going to war in Europe again would have ripped apart the still incomplete reforms that FDR had in place in 1939). Additionally the policy of isolationism that the US had been following was still much in vogue with the public and Congress, so a direct intervention in the European conflict during '39 and '40 wouldn't have been possible politically. Furthermore, extending direct financial aid to the UK and USSR, quite apart from the fact that it probably couldn't have been afforded, would also have meant that the Axis powers would have declared war on the US (as the US would have been offering direct support to the Allies), and predation on US shipping in the Atlantic would have been much heavier, and started earlier in the conflict.

The extending of the lease-loans (which was designed to be military equipment, rather than money), didn't occur until March 1941, and of course the US officially joined the Allies nine months later. Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940. On 2nd September 1940, Roosevelt did defy the Neutrality Acts by passing the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. That Agreement sold 50 American destroyers to Britain, the price being military base rights in Newfoundland and the British Caribbean islands, and is seen as being the point at which the US started to offer somewhat more substantial support to the Allies in the European war effort.

As for military leadership and advice from the US, no, I'm afraid not, at least not prior to 1941. Although FDR was in contact with Churchill while Churchill was Vice-Lord of the Admiralty, and later Prime Minister, such correspondance, where it touched upon the war, was in finding inventive ways for FDR to defy the common, economical,political and legislative hurdles that barred the US from extending aid to Britain. The ability to extend military leadership and control to the UK was both legally impossible and militarily impossible for FDR. The Neutrality Acts provided the legal impossibilities (FDR was only able to defy the Neutrality Acts by taking what would have been the donation of 50 Destroyers to the UK and turning it into 'sale'), and of course, if the US had provided military leadership prior to them officially declaring war on Germany, then this would have been deemed an Act of War by the Axis powers and would have esssentially boxed them into the position of having to declare war against the US, which, interestingly, is something that the European based Axis powers wanted to avoid.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 01:49 4/Nov/08
::to clarify a few points. Lend lease in general was NOT paid back (except for some items that were delivered after the war, and for some ships). Second the US banks made heavy loans to Britain in 1939-40, which financed heavy exports of raw materials like steel used for munitions. As for the leadership, well the Brits were leading the war against Germany in 1939-41 all right, but they were "leading" because they were alone in the war--and they were mostly losing. I suggest the defeat of Germany --which is the point here--came in 1942-45 under US leadership. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes, lend-lease was never meant to be paid back. Sorry, I should have clarified the sentence "Essentially, apart from offering moral support the US had very little to do with the European conflict prior to the final months of 1940.". The US in this context was meant to be the US Government, but I didn't make that clear. The loans made during the war by US banks were, of course, a private business matter, as opposed to US Gov Policy, at least officially. Of course it is extremely likely that FDR twisted a few arms to make sure that the loans were made, but from the point of view of history that, I'm afraid to say, hasn't been recorded as intervention made by the US Government in the European conflict (and now that it doesn't matter politically and if it can be shown that FDR 'persuaded' the banks to make the loans, then it should be recorded in the histories that the US intervened earlier in the European conflict).

Leadership '39-'41. We're back to that tricky one. As I've said, there were 21 countries and blocs of countries that formed the Allies during that period and while Britain certainly led the Commenwealth (or at least soon to be Commonwealth) and Empire countries from '39-'41, they didn't lead the other countries that were part of the Allies at the time. To say that Britian led the Allies or war effort during that time is as inaccurate as pointing to any single one country during that time and say that they led the war effort.

Mostly losing. Mmm, no, or at least, not in context. If Britain had fallen to Germany then yes, you could certainly say that they lost (and, of course, that would have meant that the US wouldn't have been able to intervene in the European conflict, the fall of Britain would have seen the fall of Western Europe and that, in turn, would have led to the fall of Africa and parts of the Middle East to the Nazis at the same time (because large swathes of both those areas were owned by the Western European powers). This would have meant that there was no point of entry into the European conflict that the US could use, apart from entry from the Soviet Union, but trying to fight in Europe using the Soviet Union as an entry point in 1941 would have been all but impossible from a logistical point of view, simply because it would have been immpossible to ship the heavy equipment needed by the US army to that entry point), but the concept of lose or victory '''during''' a war is almost always defined in terms of the strategy being pursued at the time. Britain's strategy at the time was to hunker down and hold on. It wasn't a brilliant strategy (because it cost a lot of civilian lives), it wasn't going to be a winning strategy in the long term provided that the circumstances of the war didn't change (it never is), but it was a strategy born of necessity (Britain didn't have the numbers, firepower or position to push back Germany and the only other option, apart from hanging on grimly, was to surrender to the Nazis). Instead, the idea behind the strategy was that war is an ever shifting morass of possibilities, changes and mistakes. In this case the mistake (and subsequent change in the overall picture of the war) made was that the German war machine believed that Britain was about to fall and so opened a second front against the USSR. This relieved the pressure on Britain, which allowed it to hang on until the second big change in the circumstances of the war, which was the US joining the European conflict a few months later. It is best to say that Britain pursued an exceedingly risky strategy that worked.

As to why this I feel this way about, what is after all, just a single sentence in the Nazi article is that I have always believed that encyclopedias, no matter what type they are, should always be as factually accurate as possible, even on the smallest of details. Just saying that the US led the Allies in WWII is accurate to a point but could be more accurate (by pointing out that the US led the Allied effort from '41-'45) but then you run into two pitfalls which are i) it doesn't say who led pre-end'41 and ii) the US led Allies co-ordinated and worked with the USSR-led Allies but didn't lead the USSR-led Allies. From there you run into the problem that SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) had a US Supreme Commander, a British Deputy Supreme Commander, 1 British and 2 US Ground Force Commanders, and of course the Air and Sea Force Commanders were both British. You start to fill in all those blanks, and all of a sudden what should be a single sentence turns into a nightmare of complexity, fact-checking and citations. That's why I like the compromise sentence, and I am very pleased that it is still there. Thank you.

At some point I would like to do an article on the political situatiions and decisions made during WWII, although it has to be said, don't look for it soon, entire shelves in libraries are dedicated to that single subject, so planning, typing and checking will take quite sometime. Still, I think it will be worth it. I have noticed that subjects like the Blitz (not necessarily here, but in general), give the facts but rarely a context. A simple example of that is the SHAEF decision to start bombing German towns once German forces had started to be forced back. Yes, the bombing did help reduce the German War Machine by hitting munitions factories and such like, but the fact is that there was no planned targeting, obviously no pin-point targeting because such a thing didn't exist, and very much a feeling of justified revenge for the Blitz from the British. What happened. 500,000 German civilians were killed in the bombing. That's a large figure. Now think of it as being one hundred and sixty seven government sanctioned 911's. Suddenly its a '''very''' big number, and that's what I mean by context. In fact, the bombing of German towns and the Blitz had a huge part to play in the Geneva Conventions ban on deliberatly targeting civilians. Yet you go into a pub and ask a young 20-something what they know of the Dresden bombings and see just how little they know.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 00:58 7/Nov/08 GMT
::well the Brits themselves had little to do with the war before spring 1940 as well (it was called a phoney war). And the Soviets were on the Nazi side! Starting summer 1940 the US economy was mobilized into the war effort and the US drafted millions of men. As for leadership, the defeat of the Nazis did not happen in 1939, 40 or 41--in fact they were winning until the US entered the war and turned it around. Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF. They stayed in cities because they were building tanks and guns there. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, the USSR was on the Nazi's side, but what is truly alarming is that they didn't need to be. A fortnight before WWII started Stalin made an offer to Britain and France to send close to a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler. Unfortunately Britain and France, not trusting Stalin, decided not to agree to an alliance and effectively left USSR out in the cold. In response the Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.

As for leadership, one of those tricky things again. Leaders exist in both failure and success, one of the points to having leaders is that the political classes have somebody to point to and say "Oh, you". Did the US lead the western allies in success. Yes and no. The US joined the war, the tide turned, but part of that was the disaster at Stalingrad, a success that was wholly the Soviet Union's and sapped a massive number of German troops away from the Western fronts. So in that sense the leadership is jointly US and USSR (althouth you will understand that isn't a point that was solidly taught on either side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War). Yet the Supreme Commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was a US General, Eisenhower. In that sense the leadership was US. However, his deputy was British and immediately under them were 2 US Force Commanders and 3 British Force Commanders, so in that sense the leadership was a joint-command. It is prehaps best, from a factual view, to seperate success from leadership. Therefore it can clearly be said that Allies success in WWII had a great deal to do with the US committing forces to the Western front in Europe and the USSR forcing the surrender of German Troops at Stalingrad. In terms of leadership, well as I said, complicated, not something that is determined by success, and in all cases has a habit of shifting significantly with the passage of time.

"Sorry about the Germans in the cities--they should have moved to the villages, as they were ordered to do by the USAAF and the RAF". Sorry, I read that and I laughed so hard I cried. I can just see it now. ''"Excuse me Mr. Nazi Security Officer who is, has and is part of group that systematically removes families and people from homes, sends them to death camps, kills people in the street, shoots people for the most trivial of offences, including not being patriotic enough, and when not involved in killing also happens to be involved in some of the most brutal, despicable and unacceptable torture and medical experiments the world has ever seen which has not just been practiced on adults but also children as young as babies, our enemies have told us that they are going to bomb us so you don't mind if I don't come into work for say, oh the next three or four years."''. There are few people who are truly defiant and willing to ignore the orders of the man who has a gun pointed to their head. There are even fewer who are willing to be that defiant when the man with the gun has it pointed at the head of their children. And that assumes that any significant part of the civilian population even heard the warnings. I doubt the Nazi Government passed the message on and anybody caught listening to the radio frequencies used by the British or other allies was automatically assumed to be a spy, taken away and questioned with a red-hot poker until they either a) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not or b) broke and admitted they were a spy to stop the torture regardless of whether they were a spy or not. A few years of that kind of government policy is going to make sure very few people on Germany would be that keen to listen to anything that the Allies said.[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 02:25 7/Nov/08 GMT
::The allied bombers dropped billions of leaflets to tell people to get out. Both the German and Japanese (and British) governments tried to get civilians to leave the cities. People did not want to go. In a total war the homefront factories and railroads are decisive weapons (all the posters on both sides said war worker = soldier) so the postmodern theme that creates an artificial distinction between civilians and soldiers is based on the sensibilities of the 1960s (when H Bombs were a very different threat) rather than the 1940s. The NSDAP did a rather good job caring was bombing victims. On another point: the article title is unsatisfactory--it's a term rarely used and will not help students studying for tests. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Compare and contrast==

We need to write about the similarities and differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, before we entertain any more views about how "the Nazis were not socialist". But do not use trick arguments based on shifting meanings of ''[[socialism]]''. In particular, we must not pretend that only [[Marxism-Leninism]] is really socialism. We might also need a [[Capitalism and socialism]] article.

In [[capitalism]], investors choose how to invest their money; factory owners decide what to produce and how much; sellers and buyers agree on price. In [[socialism]], the government makes these decisions; evasion of price controls is an economic crime (a "[[black market]]" transaction).

Although neither system has made people uniformly wealthy, we might compare the [[standard of living]] in countries which have tried out the two systems. For example, health care in America vs. Cuba; forget the official propaganda: what are the real conditions in Cuban hospitals for regular citizens? And how long did people in the USSR have to wait in line every day to get ordinary things like bread or shoes?

Anyway, my question is whether Nazi Germany ever put economic controls in place similar to those of Communist countries, such as wage and price controls and factory quotas. And if so, did it have the same effect on the economy as [[state ownership]] did in the USSR? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:04, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
::The Nazis put in real control during the war, as did all major countries. (it's called "war socialism") Note that American conservatives all supported the "war socialism" in the USA--and for example Milton Friedman was a key player in setting it up. Before the war German economic controls were not especially elaborate except regarding Jews. The key issue I think for this article is the role of business and labor. The Russians destroyed ALL businesses and the Germans kept them, and indeed before 1942 the businessmen made most of the business. Speer's memoirs are central here--they tell how he took control of the German economy in 1942-43. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:23, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks. That's the kind of stuff we need to know. I want to avoid making a specious argument of the following type:
:::*If a bad man practices something, that thing is bad.
:::*Hitler was a bad man, and he practiced socialism.
:::*Therefore, socialism is bad.
:::I think this fallacy is called "tarring with the same brush" or the "association fallacy".

:::On the other hand, if Hitler's fascist regimentation of all aspects of national life is indeed similar to Communist totalitarianism, then we should point that out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

We also need to be aware of the differences between American and European Conservatism at the time, European conservatism of the early 20th century was concerned not with, as US conservatism is the preservation of the American Constitution, bill of rights et al. But rather with the regaining or conservation of the situation and institutions of 19th century Europe, meaning Merchantilism, Colonialism, Militarism, Imperialism and a centeralised state ruled by an annoited elite, this is ably demostrated by the United Kingdoms Constitutional Crisis http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-94.html in which the predominatly conservative House of Lords vetoed the Budget of the newly elected Liberal (UK meaning) goverment, these 'conservatives' wanted to maintain the power of the Monarch and the Nobility and the Union with Irealnd against the expressed wishes of the Electorate, they have nothing in common with American Conservatism, but the are a prime example of European conservatism, hence the left-right axis really braking down when talking about events of the even close past, and more importantly across culural divides as deep as those between early 20th Century Europe and the modern United states, actually with further thought Hitlers Anti-immigration ,anti-homosexualy, traditional roles for women, nationalism, are all right wing policies still practiced to gretaer or lesser degrees by the american conservatives, arguably corporatism is neo-con and conservative democrat territory, his works programs and 4 year plans are communist however. The left aknowledges the monster on the fringe why does thge roght continualy deny the excistence of it's own monster? No one (at least not I) is suggesting that any western democracy is heading for facism, but the right continually screams that any goverment funding for anything is communism. [[User:Machine13|Machine13]] 11:11, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
:Liberal attempts like that to associate Conservatism with the Nazi Party would be insulting and slanderous if they weren't so laughable. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 12:10, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

So the truth of where conservative ideologies have led is slanderous and insulting? The only people who seem to think that the nazi party where not right wing are american christian fundementalists, does that mean that the entire rest of the population of the earth that has heard of them (as I am sure there are some people somewhere who have not) are liberals (if they where the world would be a very different place) ? Or could it be that the right has monsters on the fringes the same way the left does?
Question: is homophobia not a conservative trait according to this very site? Question: are extreme partriotism and nationalism not conservative traits? Question: is the desire for traditional gender roles not a conservative trait? As shown by the anti-pathy to feminism? Question: Is militarism not a conservative trait? As exemplified by conservative adminstrations borrowing heavily to fund defense spending? Question: If the Nazi party is to be taken at there word and there claim of socilaism accepted, did that make the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) a democracy? If not why not? Are organisations not to be taken at there word? Or in that case would you accept that they both lie because it suits there ends?
:Answer: Homophobia is not a conservative trait; it was a label invented by liberals to apply to conservatives who are opposed to the pushing and promoting of homosexuality in the public sphere.
:Answer: Conservatives are the only ones defending America and Britain; liberals are the ones trashing them. Which of these two groups displays true patriotism/nationalism?
:Answer: Militarism is not a conservative trait, and you can see it on display in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, and other socialist/communist countries.
:Answer: East Germany was a communist country, despite its name of "German Democratic Republic". You do remember the Berlin Wall?
:Answer: We don't take communistic organizations at their word because their word is no good. That includes those who support them.
::And in answer to you, Machine13, apparently you have fallen for the lies of the liberal left. Hence, your user name. We don't need machines on this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:32, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

== No mention of nationalism? ==

I was curious as to why there was no mention of the other half of the Nazi's name, nationalism. Wasn't their program a folding of nationalism and socialism, rather than just straight socialism? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 19:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)