Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sesame Street

2008-12-11T18:57:25Z

GloriaL: whoops - typo rectified

[[Image:sesamestreet.jpg|200px|right|]]
'''Sesame Street''' is a television show for children on the [[PBS]] network. It has been around since 1969 and has spawned a series of movies, books, magazines, and toys. Sesame Street features [[muppet]]s interacting with adults and children in an educational setting that emphasizes learning numbers and letters. The show has won a number of [[Emmy Award]]s and is shown in over 25 languages around the world.

==Spinoffs==
Sesame Street successfully launched the career of [[Jim Henson]]'s muppets and has produced countless imitations and variations. A number of Sesame Street movies have been made, including ''Follow That Bird'' and ''The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland''. Sesame Street characters have made appearances on a number of game and talk shows. Many stuffed animals of the Sesame Street characters are sold in amazing quantities and the [[Tickle Me Elmo]] is considered to be one of the best selling toys of all time. A number of musical albums have been released by Sesame Street characters, most notably ''Bert's Blockbusters'' which scored an unexpected success in 1974 with the single ''Doin' the Pigeon''.<ref>[http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/sesame_street/berts_blockbusters/ Bert's Blockbusters - #4 Album of 1974]</ref>

==Muppet Characters==
* [[Big Bird]] -- An 8-foot tall yellow bird who walks on 2 legs, a good natured but simple creature. The character of Big Bird was involved in a real-life media scandal about draft-dodging in the Vietnam War following his appearance in the NBC sitcom "Bill'n'the Bird" in 1968. <ref>http://www.culturenest.co.uk/tvradio.html</ref>
* [[Cookie Monster]] -- a lover of all cookies
* [[Snuffleupagus]] -- a creature who looks a bit like an elephant; at first only big bird saw him, but that has changed
* [[Oscar the Grouch]] -- lives in a garbage can, has a generally cantankerous nature
* [[Elmo]]
* [[The Count]] -- a vampire who loves to count
* [[Bert & Ernie]] -- human muppets; Ernie's child-like goofs are balanced by Bert's more serious nature
* [[Telly Monster]]
* [[Kermit the Frog]] -- a green frog hand muppet who went on to star in the muppet movies
* [[Grover]] -- typical friendly monster, also the voice of Yoda
* [[Miss Piggy]] -- prone to explosive outburts, she also has a crush on Kermit

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet/ Sesame Street homepage]
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063951/ IMDB website]
* [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/101803.shtml Protest over AK-47 in foreign version]
* [http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/mars_and_venus_.html Concern over female stereotypes]

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-12-11T18:55:51Z

GloriaL: /* Who cares */

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

: The point is not ''who said something'' but ''whether it makes sense''. A comment which hasn't been refuted is one for which nobody has been able to think of a refutation (or felt strongly enough about it to write it down here, anyway). I wouldn't object to people signing their comments, but what might be more useful is if people would indicate their agreement with ''any'' comments they agree with, not just their own. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: Agreed. A question I'd like to pursue with the "in crowd" here is: what is the philosophical basis of Conservapedia's fact-base? Is it ultimately derived from Andy Schlafly's authority (i.e. ultimately whatever he says is true ''is'' true as far as Conservapedia is concerned), or from Scripture (in which case: how do we decide between multiple conflicting interpretations?), or from objective reality, or what? --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
===The Pattern===
HDCase raises the point that it's not that any one of these points is the smoking gun, it's the pattern towards which they all point -- the puzzle into which they all seem to fit. This is a point which needed to be raised, because I think it's what the original article was driving at although it didn't say so explicitly.

To me, however, what this pattern points toward is this:
* a man who had what many Americans would see as a rather unconventional upbringing -- which happened to include a lot of exposure to Islam
* a man who followed his conscience rather than thinking "what will look bad on my political resume, down the road?"
* a man for whom many people have strong antipathy, for a number of reasons-- and who is therefore likely to be seen in a sinister light no matter what the evidence. Some of the accusations above only "work" at all because of the sheer volume and repetition of the "Obama is Muslim" [[big lie]] -- he defends himself against discussion of "my Muslim faith", and that becomes additional "proof".

I mean, look, what indications has the guy ever really given that he's ''Islamic'' rather than, say, just another obnoxious (to you) liberal? Seems to me you'd be better off accusing him of being a closet atheist; I could probably make a case for that if I had the inclination. But Muslim?

Some people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence -- and it's part of what makes America great that this is ok. We can tolerate a diversity of ideas and still get along with each other -- "We could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye-to-eye". (Just don't go expecting your point of view to be taken seriously if you don't have the evidence to back it up.) --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 18:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the black liberation movement (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm sorry but I don't buy that you even looked. Most of these issues have been discussed pretty widely, if you only listen to conservative talk radio or very conservative talking heads you wont get that sort of information, but if you pop on to snopes or read the economist or WSJ (both conserative papers I might add) you will get most of the information. The problem is not that Obama didn't put the information out, its that you have coddled your self in undiverse media that has insulated you from the facts in this case. Just like you wouldn't get information on a republican getting screwed over unfairly in the San Fransisco Chronical you aren't going to get information on how a demopcrat is being slighted on the rush limbaugh show. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who cares==

who cares what is Obama's faith? is that REALLY important?--[[User:SocialDemocratic|SocialDemocratic]] 10:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

It is not important whether or not he is a Muslim. What counts is that we keep alive the seed of doubt in people's minds that he ''might'' be and this will help create a sense of anxiety in people who might be tempted to support him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Gloria are you seriously suggesting that we should try to appeal to people's innate xenophobia or racism in trying to convince them that Obama is bad? [[User:Nrupert|Nrupert]] 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

No, only their mistrust of the dishonest! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 13:55, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Sesame Street

2008-12-11T18:51:42Z

GloriaL: Big Bird's draft-dodging past!

[[Image:sesamestreet.jpg|200px|right|]]
'''Sesame Street''' is a television show for children on the [[PBS]] network. It has been around since 1969 and has spawned a series of movies, books, magazines, and toys. Sesame Street features [[muppet]]s interacting with adults and children in an educational setting that emphasizes learning numbers and letters. The show has won a number of [[Emmy Award]]s and is shown in over 25 languages around the world.

==Spinoffs==
Sesame Street successfully launched the career of [[Jim Henson]]'s muppets and has produced countless imitations and variations. A number of Sesame Street movies have been made, including ''Follow That Bird'' and ''The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland''. Sesame Street characters have made appearances on a number of game and talk shows. Many stuffed animals of the Sesame Street characters are sold in amazing quantities and the [[Tickle Me Elmo]] is considered to be one of the best selling toys of all time. A number of musical albums have been released by Sesame Street characters, most notably ''Bert's Blockbusters'' which scored an unexpected success in 1974 with the single ''Doin' the Pigeon''.<ref>[http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/sesame_street/berts_blockbusters/ Bert's Blockbusters - #4 Album of 1974]</ref>

==Muppet Characters==
* [[Big Bird]] -- An 8-foot tall yellow bird who walks on 2 legs, a good natured but simple creature. The character of Big Bird was involved a real-life media scandal about draft-dodging in the Vietnam War following his appearance in the NBC sitcom "Bill'n'the Bird" in 1968. <ref>http://www.culturenest.co.uk/tvradio.html</ref>
* [[Cookie Monster]] -- a lover of all cookies
* [[Snuffleupagus]] -- a creature who looks a bit like an elephant; at first only big bird saw him, but that has changed
* [[Oscar the Grouch]] -- lives in a garbage can, has a generally cantankerous nature
* [[Elmo]]
* [[The Count]] -- a vampire who loves to count
* [[Bert & Ernie]] -- human muppets; Ernie's child-like goofs are balanced by Bert's more serious nature
* [[Telly Monster]]
* [[Kermit the Frog]] -- a green frog hand muppet who went on to star in the muppet movies
* [[Grover]] -- typical friendly monster, also the voice of Yoda
* [[Miss Piggy]] -- prone to explosive outburts, she also has a crush on Kermit

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet/ Sesame Street homepage]
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063951/ IMDB website]
* [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/101803.shtml Protest over AK-47 in foreign version]
* [http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/mars_and_venus_.html Concern over female stereotypes]

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Talk:Kosher

2008-12-11T18:43:15Z

GloriaL:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I would focus less on the Hebrew terminology and more on what makes food kosher or not. Also, why is it important to (some) Jews to "keep Kosher", while others may not bother?

Also, the image of the non-dairy creamer seems a bit "cheesy" (no pun intended). How about a rabbi or a butcher shop? Or a picnic at a synagogue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I was going to ulpoad a picture of the major kosher symbols, but I do not have upload rights -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

As for what makes food kosher or not I made [[Kosher#Rules_of_Kashrut]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Cut and Paste ==

There's some extensive and significant cutting and pasting from [http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm]. Pasting another author's work wholesale and continually citing the source after the end of each sentence isn't acceptable in an academic paper. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:34, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I only copied a paragraph-size section from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm but interesting is that it is identical to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html

I then used it as a source for some of the laws. I'll try to fix the problem
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 17:44, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kosher&action=edit

The article actually uses a small amount of material from jewfaq.org/Kashrut.htm, it uses from many more diverse sources now -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==Picture==
I have found a good picture [http://www.jewfaq.org/graphics/kashrut.gif] but do not have upload rights can someone upload it for me -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 21:55, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

===Equivalence in cruelty to halal===
Why the reversion? Surely animal cruelty is the same no matter which religion is responsible for it? The halal article mentions cruelty, so why not kosher?

Truth

2008-12-11T18:39:50Z

GloriaL: removed - sorry just notice logic entry!!

This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth relating to God and society; for the definition as a philosophical and logical term, see [[truth_(logic)]].

'''Truth''' is one of the fundamental building blocks of reality. One could probably say that without truth, nothing could exist. In fact, not only is truth a fundamental building block of reality, but it is also a central character trait and attribute of the one who is in control of all things, namely [[God]] himself. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the [[Trinity|triune God]], proclaimed about himself in John 14:6, "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life...". From that verse and others, we can conclude that truth is not something external to God himself, but is rather something that is inextricably joined and a part of His Being.

== Truth as a Value ==
Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of "undesirable" traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.

==Opponents==
Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentally, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]], e.g. refusing to describe someone as crippled or a spastic when they plainly are, out of some misguided notion of politeness. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.

==See also==
*[[God]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Holy Spirit]]

==External links==
*[http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm Truth in Christianity]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Attributes of God]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Truth

2008-12-11T18:39:06Z

GloriaL: added Stanford definition

This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth relating to God and society; for the definition as a philosophical and logical term, see [[truth_(logic)]].

'''Truth''' is one of the fundamental building blocks of reality. It is the direct correspondence between structures within the mind and those in the outside world. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/</ref> One could probably say that without truth, nothing could exist. In fact, not only is truth a fundamental building block of reality, but it is also a central character trait and attribute of the one who is in control of all things, namely [[God]] himself. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the [[Trinity|triune God]], proclaimed about himself in John 14:6, "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life...". From that verse and others, we can conclude that truth is not something external to God himself, but is rather something that is inextricably joined and a part of His Being.

== Truth as a Value ==
Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of "undesirable" traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.

==Opponents==
Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentally, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]], e.g. refusing to describe someone as crippled or a spastic when they plainly are, out of some misguided notion of politeness. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.

==See also==
*[[God]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Holy Spirit]]

==External links==
*[http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm Truth in Christianity]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Attributes of God]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Kosher

2008-12-11T18:31:02Z

GloriaL: equating kosher with halal in terms of animal cruelty

[[Image:Kashrut advertizement.jpg|thumb|right|300px|As illustrated by this advertisement for a New York delicatessen, the observance of kosher transforms food into a vehicle for holiness, making the kitchen the spiritual hub of the home. Through observance, every activity associated with food becomes an opportunity for spiritual refinement.<ref>"Y2K" (2002) [http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=22 Committee For The Advancement of Torah]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>]]
[[Kosher]] is the [[English|Anglicized]] form of the [[Hebrew]] term ''kasher'', which literally means "good" or "proper," but came to indicate an item "fit for ritual use." '''Kashrut''' thus means "fitness" for ritual use.<ref>"Kosher Terminology" [http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/kosher.htm Keeping Kosher: Jewish Dietary Laws]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref> The Hebrew word for non-kosher is ''trayf'', derived from the word ''terayfa'', "torn", stemming from the commandment not to eat meat that has been "torn" by other animals.<ref name="k">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm</ref> Any style of food may be kosher or non-kosher, from [[China|Chinese]] to [[Mexico|Mexican]] to [[Jewish]] food. Similarly, traditional Ashkenazic Jewish foods like knishes, bagels, blintzes, and matzah ball soup can all be non-kosher if not prepared in accordance with Jewish law.<ref>"Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws" [http://kosherfood.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=kosherfood&cdn=food&tm=18&gps=180_189_1436_754&f=10&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm Judaism 101]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

While Jewish Dietary Laws originated in the [[Bible]] (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 17), they have been codified and interpreted over the centuries by [[Rabbi|rabbinical]] authorities, and the definitions of kosher have evolved in response to changes in the food industry, the Jewish people, and world culture.<ref>Shimoni, Giora "What is Kosher Food?" [http://kosherfood.about.com/od/whatiskosherfood/f/kosherfood.htm About.com: Kosher Food]. Retrieved 23 July 2008.</ref>

==Rules of Kashrut==
The following is a rough outline of the rules of kashrut.

# A land animal may be eaten if it chews its cud and has split hooves.<ref name="an">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Animals</ref>
# Animals which live in the water must have fins and scales.<ref name="an"/>
# Blood is forbidden even from kosher animals.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Blood</ref>
# The sciatic nerve and its adjoining blood vessels may not be eaten.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fats</ref>
# Insects are forbidden.<ref name="an"/><ref name="bug"/><ref name="bug2">http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32</ref>
# Rodents, reptiles, and amphibians, are all forbidden. <ref name="an"/>
# Vegetables and fruits must be checked for insects.<ref name="bug">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Fruits</ref><ref name="bug2"/>
# Milk and meat and or poultry derived foods must not be mixed.<ref name="s">http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Separation</ref>
# Animals must be killed in a specific way by a shohet (the exception being fish).<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Shechitah</ref>
# Separate silverware must be used for fleshig (meat and poultry) and milchig (milk) foods.<ref name="s"/>
# Utensils (pots, pans, plates, flatware, etc., etc.) must also be kosher. A utensil picks up the kosher "status" (meat, dairy, pareve, or treif) of the food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it, and transmits that status back to the next food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Utensils</ref>
# Most Jews who keep Kosher wait 3 to 6 hours after eating fleshig to eat milchig though the reverse is not true.<ref name="s"/> Others wait other amounts of time.
# Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat/poultry or dairy.<ref>http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Rules</ref>
# Amongst poultry, birds of prey are considered treyf.<ref name="an"/>
# Wine is not kosher if it has been touched by a non-Jews unless the wine has previously been boiled. This is due to the concern that the wine might be used for idolatrous purposes. <ref>http://www.skskosher.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=32</ref><ref>http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-thirst-wine.htm</ref>
# When, after the ritual slaughtering, an animal, apparently sound during its life, is found to have been diseased, its milk, or cheese made of its milk, is forbidden as food. <ref name="JE">Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Dietary Laws</ref> Since this is a religious practice, similar to that used in Islamic halal food preparation, the [[American Veterinary Medical Association]] (AVMA) cannot oppose this cruel practice.
# The ancient Israelites looked with horror upon the custom prevalent among the surrounding nations of cutting off a limb or a piece of flesh from a living animal and eating it.<ref name="JE"/> Such limbs had to be thrown away.<ref name="JE"/>
# Water that was left uncovered overnight was not permitted as drink in olden times, because of the apprehension that a serpent might have left its venom in it.<ref name="JE"/> Where serpents are not found this prohibition does not exist.<ref name="JE"/>

==Kashrut in the New Testament==

There is sufficient Scriptual evidence that in the New Testament Kashrut is abolished, or, at least, demoted from being a Divine imperative. This is primarily founded in the saying of Christ, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles but what goes out of a man that defiles him, for from the heart..." This is followed by either the words of the Gospel of Mark or slightly later gloss but representing the original apostolic understanding, "thus making all foods clean."

This understanding underpinned the new reality which the Church would not lose - from now on, the gentiles were grafted into the blessings of Abraham and in the Messiah were now one with the people of God, the Jewish believers in Jesus, and eat at the same table, partaking of the same food, and one with them in the most intimate and commonplace of all their activities - sharing around the dinner table. The common Eucharist, the Holy communion for all races of believers grew out of this understanding, and remained open to all, even, subsequent to New Testament times, after the actual meal portion dropped away. In the letter to the Galatians, Peter was taken to task by Paul for having violated this truth by absenting himself from the table attended by the gentiles.

Acts chapter 15 shows the ability to adapt to new situations and how the spirit of Jesus was applied with kindness, firmness, and understanding in the changing new situation of gentiles coming into the Church. The Old no longer had effect on the ingathering of the gentiles and they were free from the law of Moses. But they were not to eat meat with blood in it, a key element of Kashrut, for doing so was offensive to the Jews amongst them. "for Moses is read everywhere." - For the sake of peace. The unity of the Body of Christ was not to be violated.

Note: It may be that the prohibition against eating the blood came about from an understanding that the Divine intent in the original prohibition of the Old Testament was given as a pointer to the future sacrifice of the Son of God and the shedding of His blood. But this is not explicitly brought out in Acts 15. The rational in the original prohibition in the Old Testament reads, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for the soul, for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11
Yet, the symbolic import of this interpretation is not foreign to Biblical interpretation, as the basis for not eating the portion containing the sciatic nerve is found in Scripture itself in the remembrance fostered by this restraint, of Jacob's struggle with the divine being and the subsequent wounding he received on the back of his thigh. One of the symptoms of sciatica is pain in the back portion of the thigh.

==Use in popular culture==
The term ''kosher'' has entered the popular culture to describe anything or anyone which is considered legitimate, honest or pleasing.

==Further reading==
<div class="references-small">
*Binyomen Forst, ''The Laws of Kashrus'', Mozniam, 1999
*Isidore Grunfeld, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws'', London: Soncino, 1972
*Isaac Klein, ''A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice'', JTSA, 1992
*James M. Lebeau, ''The Jewish Dietary Laws: Sanctify Life'', United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, New York, 1983
*Yacov Lipschutz, ''Kashruth: A Comprehensive Background and Reference Guide to the Principles of Kahruth''. New York:Mesorah Publications Ltd, 1989
</div>
{{RL}}

==External links==
===Resources on keeping kosher===
*[http://www.OUKosher.org Online resource for keeping Kosher and becoming Kosher certified - The Orthodox Union]
*[http://www.kashrut.org Questions and Answers about specific food products and kashrut in general]
*[http://www.kosherrecipe.org/keepkosher Guide to keeping kosher and Kosher Recipes]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=113424 Guide to keeping kosher]
*[http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/kosher_Food_Symbols.htm International Kosher Symbols and Kosher Food Guidance]
*[http://www.kof-k.org/ Kosher Certification]
*''[http://www.star-k.com/ The Star K's website]''
*''[http://www.ok.org/ The O-K's website]''
*[http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm A useful guide to the issues of kashrus]

===Ritual slaughter===
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=222239 About Shechita: The Method of Animal Slaughter]
*[http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041203/peta.shtml Controversy over recent PETA complaint]
*[http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html Studies on pain during slaughter]
*[http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/luminaries/monograph/forum_ar.shtml Conservative Judaism viewpoints on which methods should be considered kosher]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm Proposed British ban on kosher and halal meat]
*[http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/ Campaign against all ritual slaughter]

===Miscellaneous===
*[http://kosherfood.about.com About Kosher Food: Menus and Recipes]
*[http://www.kosher.com/Index.cfm Kosher.com]
*[http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=93784 Traditional Kosher foods recipes]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030424111703/schwartz.enviroweb.org/view-torah.html The Torah and vegetarianism]
*[http://www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/AboutTheEncyclopaedia/SampleContent/DietaryLaws Second Jewish Encyclopaedia's excerpt on kashrut and Jewish dietary laws]
*[http://www.kashrut.com/agencies/ Kashrut certification agencies (partial list)] from around the world, and their symbols which are found on all food that has been deemed kosher.

[[Category:Old Testament]]
[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Dodo

2008-12-11T16:48:39Z

GloriaL:

[[image:Alice-and-dodo.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Tenniel's illustration of Alice and the dodo]]

The '''dodo,''' (''Didus ineptus'' L., now ''Raphus cucullatus'') was a large bird incapable of flying. They weighed an astounding 50 pounds and lived on the islands of [[Mauritius]] off the coast of east [[Africa]].

The dodo became extinct in the late 1600s, and [[environmentalist]]s blame human activity for this [[extinction]]. Actually, numerous species have always gone extinct each decade with or without human activity to blame. The dodo might have been wiped out by disease <ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/AboutUs/MinistersAndDepartmentLeaders/ChiefMedicalOfficer/Features/DH_4102997</ref> or even by the hand of God, ''pace'' the dinosaur. But the dodo captured people's imagination as one of the first recorded extinctions. The environmentalists' theory is that humans helped drive the dodo to extinction by hunting and by bringing along rats and other animals to the island which damage the dodo habitat and stole dodo eggs.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3281323.stm]</ref> But evidence indicates that a natural disaster had already put the species into decline before the arrival of humans.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1678225.htm]</ref>

The dodo has become emblematic for extinction, as in the expression "as dead as the dodo." Humorist [[Will Cuppy]] wrote, jokingly:
:The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct and that was all he was good for.<ref>Cuppy, Will, ''How to Become Extinct''</ref>

A fictional dodo leads the Caucus-Race in [[Lewis Carroll]]'s book, [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]].<ref>Chapter III, "A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale</ref>; one of Tenniel's illustrations shows the Dodo presenting Alice with the prize of a thimble—her own thimble, as the Dodo had previously decided that Alice was responsible for providing the prizes.
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Birds]]
[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Africa]]

Talk:Islam

2008-12-11T16:17:32Z

GloriaL: /* Is Obama a Prominent Muslim? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

Talk:Islam

2008-12-11T16:04:52Z

GloriaL: /* Is Obama a Prominent Muslim? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

Islam

2008-12-11T15:53:51Z

GloriaL: correcting obvious omission

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] religious and [[politics|political]] figure. The word "Islam" means "submission [to Allah]" in [[Arabic language|Arabic]].

A follower of Islam is called a Muslim or Moslem, a term which means "one who submits (to God)". The older term [[Mohammedan]] means "follower of Muhammad", and has been used for centuries. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the [[Archangel]] [[Gabriel]] appeared to him.

Muslims believe that God ("Allah", '''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] (or Koran) to Muhammad and, despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it <ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The [[Qur'an]] is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of God. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, [[the Bible]], [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]], is believed to have become corrupted as well.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], the Islamic holy city.]]
Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates, in both Muslim-majority and other countries . Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but can not keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

==Historical Background==
According to Islamic belief, in 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], in the Arabian desert (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] to "recite" the message of [[Allah]] (Arabic for God). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgement day. The message to Muhammad was to be God's last; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhammad's forces starting attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632. It is believed that Muhammed is the last Prophet. Tribal elders elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through the sword into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], Southeast and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name apparently taken from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Quran as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God. Some utterances that Mohammed was unsure about, dubbed the Satanic verses, would later be incorporated in a novel in modern times by [[Salmon Rushdie]] who would then be subject to a death degree from the leader of Iran for his writing.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written [[Quran]] that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Quran is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Quran as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Quran, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Amirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Quran and able to offer commentaries on Quranic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Quran or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Quran, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners. It is hard to know the truth. Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Koran and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Koran, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Koran and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
For the most part, the Quran treats men and [[woman|women]] equally, applies the same injunctions and prohibitions to men and women, and grants many of the same privileges and benefits. But women are treated separately in certain instances. For example, women are required to "... draw their outer garments around them ... that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed (by men)." (Quran 33:59) Covering the head and body in public (hijab) is viewed by many Muslim women as a protection of their modesty, a way to discourage men's covetous eyes. The principle of hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and regular "street clothes" may be voluntary and acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque "Burqa" was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the only two Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of modest garb.

Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, and point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, and point to past Christian-dominated cultures such as medieval Europe as examples that other religions can be distorted to justify oppression.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Some critics claim that Muslim men oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities. Defenders of some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect, not constrict, women, or that many Muslim women adopt the life style of the veil voluntarily. There are Muslim women who agree and disagree with the critics.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the Dome of the Rock mosque. According to the Quran (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims are proscribed from drinking alcoholic beverages. Observant Muslims do not collect interest.

====Non-Muslim Practices====
Some practices have been associated with Islam because they occur in Islamic countries, but actually are not a part of Islam. For example, female circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran, but is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" but not obligatory condition. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, notably in Eritrea, Yemen, and Egypt. Another example of a practice that has been associated incorrectly with Islam is honor killing, in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that dishonored the family through unmarried pregnancy or promiscuous behavior. The "honor killing" is more ancient and possibly tribal in origin.

==Islam and Christianity==
While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him and his mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshiping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified:

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

Qur'an 5:73-75

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.

Islam and Christianity both accept the theory of [[intelligent design]] as correct, and do not recognize [[evolution]]ist views.

==Islam and Paganism==

Although Muslims profess belief in a single [[God]], some believe Islam has its roots in an earlier polytheistic system.<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/]</ref> By this thinking God is linked to an earlier moon deity, although it should be brought up that there is no mention of this in the Qur'an, where Allah is cited as the God of [[Abraham]].<ref>The Qur'an, Sura 37 [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Allamah-Nooruddin/dp/0963206702]</ref><ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]].]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref>

----
''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]

==Prominent Muslims==
*[[Muhammad]]
*[[Muhammad Ali]]
*[[Ahmed Deedat]]
*[[Yusef Islam]]
*[[Prince Naseem Hamed]]
*[[Rezazadeh Hossein]]
*[[Ayatollah Khomeini]]
*[[Ayatollah Khamenei]]
*[[Mohammad Khatami]]
*[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Ramadan]]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Quran online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]

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

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?

2008-12-11T15:16:01Z

GloriaL:

On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone?

To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church.

I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading "The God Delusion" and am currently reading "Letter to a Christian Nation".

My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view.

I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes.

If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of "who is like God?". Anderson is "Andrews son". Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name).

The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs.

What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say "Oh Lord" when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah.

I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this.

Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick. unsigned, by [[user: MickA]].
:I agree with the above sentiments. This is supposed to be a "no gossip" website, and, by my reckoning, speculating that somebody's religion might secretly be other than what he claims it is constitutes gossip. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama and his politics without resorting to crypto-racist slurs associating him with Islam. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::The 'Obama is a muslim' myth is one of those annoying stories that will not die, in part because any attempt to argue against it merely spreads it further. If you explain in public 'Some people believe Obama is a secret muslim, but this cannot be true because...' then most people will many listening soon after 'secret muslim.' It is just part of human political nature to assume the worst of those we consider opponents, and ignore the worst in those we consider allies. Thus strongly republican people will eagerly believe any unfounded slander on Obama, in the same way that the strongly democratic are erecting various lies regarding Palin right now. This isn't a left-v-right thing: Both factions do it.

::In any case, it's really unfounded - Obama is not, and never has been, a muslim. There is a rather tenuous connection - his father was an ex-muslim, and he did attend school in a muslim country (But not a religious school), and that's it. He has explicitly said he is a christian, attended church for years, donated to the church, throws in the required references to God in his speeches from time to time. The best argument they can make is to accidentially-on-purpose misspell his name as 'Osama Hussain.'

::I find it entertaining that many of the people who claim that Obama is a muslim also claim his '''christian''' pastor has expressed anti-white views... wouldn't these myths be mutually exclusive? They also demand an impossible standard of proof - arguing that everything Obama does is an elaborate, perfect charade to hide his true religion, and very often claiming that it's impossible for anyone born into Islam (Which he wasn't, anyway) to ever leave it.

::If these theories appear anywhere on Conservapedia, I hope they are removed before long. Criticise him honestly, don't make up lies. It's hardly difficult. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 11:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I disagree and the conclusion that a former Christian, now atheist, doesn't change his name is a bunk association. A convert to Muslim religion always changes their name. There may be truth in the fact that a Muslim that converts to Christianity doesn't change there name. If the 'now' Christian convert had a confirmation, that person would at least have a middle name that was Christian. Obamas religious beliefs are fair game, at the least due to his non-Christian beliefs in abortion and gay rights. At worst, his association with black liberation theology which targets a hatred toward other classes of people based on their religion or ethnicity, another non-Christian belief. A slip-of-tongue is acceptable and not a basis for being anti-Obama. A pattern of these is cause for concern considering his higher education. I do care that Obama is a Muslim. While the vast majority of 1 billion Muslims are peace loving individuals, it is the only religion still operating under violent oppression of women and capital punishment in the name of God. To a Muslim, non-Muslims are an enemy of God. The very fact that in America and worldwide, Muslims want an Obama presidency (even though he is Christian, an enemy of God) is a cause for alarm. BTW, I love the reconditioned format of the Obama page, very nice.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Remember that there are some Christian denominations which embrace gay rights and even have some gay people in leadership positions. One reason that gay rights are so controversial is that good thoughtful people have come to different, strongly-held points of view about the issue. One's view of gay rights cannot be used as an accurate indication of whether one is a Christian or not. I would argue that many issues are like this. While one can articulate a general Christian list of viewpoints, people are individuals and aren't always lockstep with the general outlook of their peers. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:56, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::Are you saying that Obama is a muslim and what evidence do you have? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:38, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know what to believe, but I don't believe in him. Read his Muslim background at http://newswithviews.com:80/Ryter/jon212.htm -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:44, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Let's assume that all of what this article says about his upbringing is true. How does that make him a muslim today? I was raised a Lutheran and now I am an athiest. Are you denying this? What activities in his adult life indicate that he is a muslim? Does he attend a mosque? Does he pray to Allah facing Mecca five time a day? Does he fast during Ramadan? What does he do now? Don't many of our leaders travel to countries where the majority are muslims and the leadership is muslim? Does that make them muslims? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:56, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I think that I have made my point. I think that Conservapedia needs to retract all allegations that Obama is a muslim and make it clear that there he is a christian. I think there should be a main page retraction and the silly comment currently on the main page needs to be deleted. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I second that proposal. Printing unfounded conjectures about anyone's religion on the main page is a bad precedent for a site that is supposed to have a 'no gossip' rule. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with the first poster. I'm a life-long, God-fearing Christian who voted for McCain-Palin. But I can't stomach attacking someone else for his religious views -- especially if there is not any compelling evidence that he even has those views. I don't see eye-to-eye with him on the economy, but I'm not afraid of the man, no matter what his name is. This has become just too silly, and, frankly, it embarrasses me, for people who voted for him automatically lump me in with racists and xenophobes, which I certainly am not. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them feared me. Feared me for something that they assumed about me but which was not true. I think I know how Mr. Obama feels.

We are certainly no fans of Barack Obama; in fact I spent four days in Pennsylvania campaigning for Chris Hackett for Congress and McCain for President and I don't even like MacCain but it seems to me that this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing is largely based on a verbal slip during one interview. I like Conservapedia and it seems to me that it discredits the whole site when you keep referring to Obama as a Muslim when he has denied it. (Even if he were a Muslim he certainly is not orthodox in his beliefs and practices so it would not be valid to say that he would make policy decisions based on the Koran or historic Islamic practice.) I suppose it is okay to report on the controversy but it seems like the new links that appear on the main page are frequently based on the assumption that it is a proven fact. Stuff like that makes conservatives look like flat eath advocates. Do you really think that he is a Muslim in a meaningful way and if so is there real proof beyond his childhood schooling, that refernce to "my Muslim faith" in one interview and those publicity pictures from Kenya?

By ChrisM. posted by his relative [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 20:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)

'''See also''': [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-12-11T15:08:27Z

GloriaL: /* Who cares */

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-12-11T15:07:59Z

GloriaL: /* Who cares */

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
* [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

: The point is not ''who said something'' but ''whether it makes sense''. A comment which hasn't been refuted is one for which nobody has been able to think of a refutation (or felt strongly enough about it to write it down here, anyway). I wouldn't object to people signing their comments, but what might be more useful is if people would indicate their agreement with ''any'' comments they agree with, not just their own. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

: Agreed. A question I'd like to pursue with the "in crowd" here is: what is the philosophical basis of Conservapedia's fact-base? Is it ultimately derived from Andy Schlafly's authority (i.e. ultimately whatever he says is true ''is'' true as far as Conservapedia is concerned), or from Scripture (in which case: how do we decide between multiple conflicting interpretations?), or from objective reality, or what? --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 10:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::I must admit that I am confused about this point. Why should we care if he were a Muslim? Are all Muslims evil? Are all Muslims terrorists? Do all Muslims want to damage the USA? What point is being made here?--[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
===The Pattern===
HDCase raises the point that it's not that any one of these points is the smoking gun, it's the pattern towards which they all point -- the puzzle into which they all seem to fit. This is a point which needed to be raised, because I think it's what the original article was driving at although it didn't say so explicitly.

To me, however, what this pattern points toward is this:
* a man who had what many Americans would see as a rather unconventional upbringing -- which happened to include a lot of exposure to Islam
* a man who followed his conscience rather than thinking "what will look bad on my political resume, down the road?"
* a man for whom many people have strong antipathy, for a number of reasons-- and who is therefore likely to be seen in a sinister light no matter what the evidence. Some of the accusations above only "work" at all because of the sheer volume and repetition of the "Obama is Muslim" [[big lie]] -- he defends himself against discussion of "my Muslim faith", and that becomes additional "proof".

I mean, look, what indications has the guy ever really given that he's ''Islamic'' rather than, say, just another obnoxious (to you) liberal? Seems to me you'd be better off accusing him of being a closet atheist; I could probably make a case for that if I had the inclination. But Muslim?

Some people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence -- and it's part of what makes America great that this is ok. We can tolerate a diversity of ideas and still get along with each other -- "We could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye-to-eye". (Just don't go expecting your point of view to be taken seriously if you don't have the evidence to back it up.) --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 18:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::So specific questions to answers are not needed because...... he said he is Christian? It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, "No, I am Christian." That he took Muslim classes, "No, I am Christian." That his stepfather was Muslim, "No, I am Christian." Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, "No, I am Christian." Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, "No, I am Christian." Friends with known Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, "No, I am Christian." Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, "No, I am Christian." Get my drift? No need to ask him anything because we have the answer already.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Ignoring his answers doesn't mean he did not give them. Obama born a Muslim? No, he said pretty plainly that his father was an atheist, and besides, you don't get religion until you are old enough, Islamic law may say that he inherited the religion, but 'only if you follow Islamic law, which he does not, because he is not a Muslim. That he took Muslim classes?Yes, he did go to a public school in Indonesia, where he doubtlessly received a minor amount of Muslim instruction between the ages of 6 and 8, he then went on to a catholic school where he received doubtlessly received Catholic instruction from 8-10, I don't see people running around spouting how Obama is a Catholic even though the Catholic is more likely to have stuck since he got it when he was older and there for likely remembers more, in either case he left for his grand parents place after that and from that point on there is no connection until he becomes involved with the black liberation movement (which I'm sure he became involved in because of the Draw to Islam, because it had nothing else to offer him, its not as if he is a black man... oh right, he is black, silly me) Later in life he extensively reads about Muslims leaders We are involved in a nuber of conflicts and trade situations with a part of the world that is primarily Muslim, he would have to be an Idiot not to, you know who else reads extensively about Muslims? Bush 43. You know who reads extensively about Christians? Richard Dawkins, Does that make him a christian? No it does not. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam I'll admit I don't know anything about any march that he organized exclusively, I do know that he was involved in getting people organized for marches and the like, and that the Black issue that NOI dealt with was Obama's main issue at the tie, so it seems likely that that is the reason. Friends with known Muslims Heck yes he is, he is open and up front about this and there is no problem with that. People of different faiths can be friends so long as they aren't bigoted idiots, can you be friends with a Muslim? Would a Muslim be friends with you? Pastor of 20 years an outspoken defender of Muslims So was my Catholic Priest, that doesn't make him or me or my old priest a Muslim, there is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with a whole lot of other religions, there is no reason to attack it (exclusively) so there is a great deal of reason to stand up for it, even if you aren't a member your self. Helps in election of Muslims in Kenya Both Barrack Obama and the Kenyan Govt. have come out and said there is no truth to that story. The Story is based on a fax of unknown origin and unknown destination (i.e. someone could have made it and faxed it from one end of the office to the other) and cites the PAC Firends of Senator BO, but no such PAC exists. Obamas finances have been well looked at, and there is no missing million dollars, and there is no record of him dealing with this. Just like the birth in Kenya story the only evidence to support it is that there is no evidence around it because it's not even remotely plausible. You are clutching at straws, but Obama actually answered the questions, hes not a Muslim, and there is nothing he can do about that (well he could convert) the problem you have isn't that he hasn't been forthcoming, its that you are wrong and unhappy about it. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::Thanks for the insight. It is still 100% Obama's fault this controversey exists. It is like pulling teeth without meds. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm sorry but I don't buy that you even looked. Most of these issues have been discussed pretty widely, if you only listen to conservative talk radio or very conservative talking heads you wont get that sort of information, but if you pop on to snopes or read the economist or WSJ (both conserative papers I might add) you will get most of the information. The problem is not that Obama didn't put the information out, its that you have coddled your self in undiverse media that has insulated you from the facts in this case. Just like you wouldn't get information on a republican getting screwed over unfairly in the San Fransisco Chronical you aren't going to get information on how a demopcrat is being slighted on the rush limbaugh show. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:35, 18 November 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who cares==

who cares what is Obama's faith? is that REALLY important?--[[User:SocialDemocratic|SocialDemocratic]] 10:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)

It is not important whether or not he is a Muslim. What counts is that we keep alive the seed of doubt in people's minds that he <ref>might</ref> be and this will help create a sense of anxiety in people who might be tempted to support him. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 10:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

False religions

2008-12-09T20:26:59Z

GloriaL: New page: Proponents of a religion frequently claim that other faiths are false. <ref>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm</ref> For example, from a Christian persp...

Proponents of a religion frequently claim that other faiths are false. <ref>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm</ref> For example, from a Christian perspective [[Islam]], [[Hinduism]] and [[Judaism]] are considered false because their believers do not accept the divinity of [[Jesus Christ]] and hence will not receive [[Salvation]].

Harvard University

2008-12-09T20:02:04Z

GloriaL:

{{University
|name=Harvard University
|background=Crimson
|type=Private
|city=Cambridge, Massachusetts
|sports=baseball, basketball, heavyweight crew, lightweight crew, cross country, fencing, field hockey, football, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, skiing, sailing, soccer, softball, squash, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, water polo, wrestling<ref>http://www.gocrimson.com/</ref>
|colors=Crimson
|mascot=Crimson
|website=http://www.harvard.edu/
}}
[[Image:Harvard u.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Annenberg Hall, the freshman dining facility, (copyright Harvard)]]
'''Harvard University''' is a private university located in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]]. It ranked #1 in US News's 2009 "National [[University|Universities]]: Top Schools" list.<ref>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/2155</ref>

Founded in 1636 (as Harvard College), it is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It was originally founded by [[Congregationalism|Congregationalists]] for the purpose of training [[minister]]s.

Harvard is one of the eight schools in the [[Ivy League]]. It is one of the four Ivy League schools to accept applications from [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] children.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 12</ref>

Rev. John Harvard was the son of a butcher whose family died when a plague swept England, leaving him an estate. Educated in [[England]], Rev. John Harvard was ordained, married and sailed for Massachusetts where he pastored the First Church of Charlestown. He then tragically died of tuberculosis at the mere age of 31. The College at Cambridge was then renamed in his honor him.

The school was highly religious in the 1600s. Among its graduates in that century, 50% were ministers. Prior to the Revolution, ten out of twelve of Harvard's presidents were also ministers. In the words of Harvard's founders:
:"After God had carried us safe to New England, and we ... rear'd convenient places for God's worship ... dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust ... it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard, a godly gentleman and a lover of learning ... to give the one half of his estate ... towards the erecting of a college and all his Library."

Harvard's Rules & Precepts (Sept. 26, 1642) declared:

:"Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. John 17:3."

Of the 108 first schools founded in America, 106 were founded on Christianity, <ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-09-14&view=View</ref>

Over the years, Harvard has grown to include a number of major schools.<ref>[http://www.harvard.edu/academics/]</ref> They include:
* Arts and Sciences
* Engineering and Applied Sciences
* Harvard Medical School
* Harvard School of Dental Medicine
* Harvard Business School
* Graduate School of Design
* Harvard Divinity School
* Graduate School of Education
* John F. Kennedy School of Government
* Harvard Law School
* Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
* Harvard School of Public Health

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==
*[[Yale University]]
*[[University]]
*[[Ohio State University]]
*[[Harvard Law Review]]
{{clear}}
==Notable Attendants==
{|background="none" width="100%" border="1"
|-
!A-F
!G-L
!M-R
!S-Z
|-
|valign="top"|
*[[John Adams]]
*[[Stephen Breyer]]
*[[Fred Brooks]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Alberto R. Gonzales]]
*[[Al Gore]]
*[[Theodore Hall]]
*[[John Hancock]]
*[[John F Kennedy]]
*[[Charles Krauthammer]]
*[[Bill Kristol]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Barack Obama]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Andrew Schlafly]]

|}

{{Nb_US_universities|Massachusetts}}

Talk:Star Wars novels

2008-12-09T17:56:12Z

GloriaL: /* Moved from Talk:The Thrawn Trilogy */

==Encyclopedic?==
Figured it was worth creating this page as the Star Wars books themselves contain themes that I figure would resonate with conservatives.

''e.g.''
*A common feature of the books is that private individuals are often armed, so obviously there isn't a huge amount of gun control being enforced.
*The main characters get married, have children, stay together.
*The New Republic is happy enough to engage militarily when they believe it is necessary.
*There is no abortion in the books.
*Strong bonds of friendship, loyalty and sacrifice are shown by the good guys, etc.

Does Hollywood Liberal George Lucas need all this publicity on Consevapedia? Is there not enough rubbish about "The Star Wars" on the Internet as it is? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't know whether George Lucas is a liberal or not, but Star Wars actually contains strong conservative messages about morality and personal responsibility. It's also much more family-friendly than the majority of Hollywood films today.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Blowing up planets with big laser guns is family friendly, is it? Oh and Lucas is a liberal all right: http://www.dondodd.com/publius/050202.html Do we really need to advertise his products in an encyclopaedia? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I was referring to the moral lessons about avoiding revenge in even the most trying circumstances - a good lesson in [[fortitude]]. Also, I don't remember any part of the Star Wars films where someone "blew up a planet with a big laser gun".

: I should probably stop this discussion now - I've made my points and this isn't really my decision to make.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You seem less aware of the works of your liberal hero Lucas than you let on. I've seen the first Star War film and the space station (Death Moon? Death Star?) blows up a whole planet with a big laser gun! It's there for all to see. This is a serious encyclopaedia and we shouldn't let Hollywood trivia bog it down. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: I never claimed to love the Star Wars films, and note that I haven't contributed to any of the Star Wars articles. I was just saying that there's a moral message to take from them, which a skilled preacher could use to turn young minds in the right direction. And even if the planet-destroying scene is present in the films as you describe, I doubt such behaviour is endorsed or allowed to go unpunished.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

So the Star films are only to be allowed if a preacher is on-hand to de-program the youth of America who have just watched them? A fanciful notion, to be sure, but I daresay it might work! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:48, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: It's hardly fanciful to suggest that parents should make sure that they or other suitable adults are closely involved in their children's viewing. That's the duty of any responsible parent.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

This is about the Star Wars '''books''' not the films. The difference - Lucas licensed the works to be published and said that particular characters couldn't be killed off and that was it. Lucas has never actually written a Star Wars book, and has deliberately avoided being a major influence in the creation of the books. As a result of this there is a very different message being portrayed in the books (apart from the film novelizations, for obvious reasons), compared to the films. Indeed, it has been a point of conflict between Star Wars fans and Lucas that Lucas didn't reference, or even try to tie in the prequel movies with what had been already been written in the books, thereby causing massive canon problems with Star Wars. In addition to that I would like you to consider the shear number of Star Wars books that have been, and continue to be, printed. Publishing, especially Sci-Fi and Fantasy publishing, is a cut-throat business with incredibly thin profit margins on each book. As a result of this, if a series or author isn't selling well it is often the case that books will be pulled before publishing, no matter how much money has been pumped into it. The fact that the number of Star Wars novels, both for adults and younger readers, numbers in the hundreds, and that it is the largest collection of novels produced for one work attests to the fact that Star Wars is a significant part of Western culture. Oh and, "Blowing up planets with big laser guns is family friendly, is it?", given that a) it's the bad guys doing it, and b) when you consider what bad guys get up to today in 'U' and 'PG' rated films today....--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:The problem is that it's an enormous collection of trash-fiction. Why should CP have dozens of pages advertising books of no note or reputation? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

As I said, if the work didn't sell, they wouldn't continue to publish. The sheer size of the number of works says a lot about how much the public likes these works. It might not be your cup of tea, but it is others, a lot of others. It is also worth noting just how many of these works made it into the New York Times bestselling lists.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:That's your response? By that logic, we should fill the encyclopedia with advertising of Harlequin Romances, since they not only sell better than any other novels in existence, but are translated continually, creating an international following. CP is not a resource that ''advertises'' what the public likes. That's Wikipedia. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Faulty analogy, I don't think that there are that many churned out slush romances that have any kind of strong conservative messages. The Star Wars novels do. The bad guys are notably bad, yet always get their comeuppance, good guys go through all kinds of trials, but emerge stronger at the end of it. There is rarely mention of casual relationships, or even long term out-of-marriage relationships, but where they do occur they tend to happen with the bad guys. Main characters (good guys) get married, have children, stay together. There is no abortion in the books, at all, and as previously mentioned, given the preponderance of armed civilians, there seems to be very little government gun control in force when the good guys are in charge. The books also stress the importance of friendship, sacrifice and loyalty, and the books also praises the spirit and strength of the Alliance armed forces, the structure and workings of which are often drawn from the US armed forces.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)

==Moved from Talk:The Thrawn Trilogy==

My the Lord save us from all this science fiction nonsense! Is this an encyclopaedia or a sales catalogue for George Lucas's wares? And don't tell me the 'message' justifies their inclusion, please. You'll be telling me the famous porno flick Emmanuel should be included next because it shows people living together in harmony. GloriaL 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:On the few days I've been at Conservapedia, I've noticed different users have different areas they like to focus on. If this user's focus is Star Wars, that's not a problem, because other users will do other things. Plus, from a search engine optimization perspective, if we have good, long articles on a niche subject, we can get high on the Google rankings for that subject and draw people to the remainder of our articles with things like this.-AlexanderM 12:02, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Then by that logic there should also be articles about bestiality and every other sickening depravity imaginable on the basis that it will drive perverted Googlers to the site! Is that niche enough for you, hmmm? Get real. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 12:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:Wrong. If he included articles on pornography or something that's not family-friendly, it would be a different story. I'm not too fond of you dropping pornographic terms around here, either, I should add.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 12:14, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::I fail to see the connection between a Star Wars novel and certain acts, especially given that certain acts is illegal and, last time I checked, Star Wars novels aren't, or at least aren't illegal in countries that don't have mad clergy in charge (you know the kind, the ones that could hide a badger in their beard and think that turbans are the height of fashion).--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:16, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::Gloria has been blocked for ten minutes for troublemaking.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 12:17, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry. I get angry sometimes. From now on I shall be all peace and light and love. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 12:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Star Wars novels

2008-12-09T17:10:33Z

GloriaL:

Figured it was worth creating this page as the Star Wars books themselves contain themes that I figure would resonate with conservatives.

''e.g.''
*A common feature of the books is that private individuals are often armed, so obviously there isn't a huge amount of gun control being enforced.
*The main characters get married, have children, stay together.
*The New Republic is happy enough to engage militarily when they believe it is necessary.
*There is no abortion in the books.
*Strong bonds of friendship, loyalty and sacrifice are shown by the good guys, etc.

Does Hollywood Liberal George Lucas need all this publicity on Consevapedia? Is there not enough rubbish about "The Star Wars" on the Internet as it is? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't know whether George Lucas is a liberal or not, but Star Wars actually contains strong conservative messages about morality and personal responsibility. It's also much more family-friendly than the majority of Hollywood films today.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Blowing up planets with big laser guns is family friendly, is it? Oh and Lucas is a liberal all right: http://www.dondodd.com/publius/050202.html Do we really need to advertise his products in an encyclopaedia? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I was referring to the moral lessons about avoiding revenge in even the most trying circumstances - a good lesson in [[fortitude]]. Also, I don't remember any part of the Star Wars films where someone "blew up a planet with a big laser gun".

: I should probably stop this discussion now - I've made my points and this isn't really my decision to make.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You seem less aware of the works of your liberal hero Lucas than you let on. I've seen the first Star War film and the space station (Death Moon? Death Star?) blows up a whole planet with a big laser gun! It's there for all to see. This is a serious encyclopaedia and we shouldn't let Hollywood trivia bog it down. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: I never claimed to love the Star Wars films, and note that I haven't contributed to any of the Star Wars articles. I was just saying that there's a moral message to take from them, which a skilled preacher could use to turn young minds in the right direction. And even if the planet-destroying scene is present in the films as you describe, I doubt such behaviour is endorsed or allowed to go unpunished.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

So the Star films are only to be allowed if a preacher is on-hand to de-program the youth of America who have just watched them? A fanciful notion, to be sure, but I daresay it might work! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:48, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::: It's hardly fanciful to suggest that parents should make sure that they or other suitable adults are closely involved in their children's viewing. That's the duty of any responsible parent.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

This is about the Star Wars '''books''' not the films. The difference - Lucas licensed the works to be published and said that particulr characters couldn't be killed off and that was it. Lucas has never actually written a Star Wars book, and has deliberately avoided being a major influence in the creation of the books. As a result of this there is a very different message being portrayed in the books (apart from the film novelizations, for obvious reasons), compared to the films. Indeed, it has been a point of conflict between Star Wars fans and Lucas that Lucas didn't reference, or even try to tie in the prequel movies with what had been already been written in the books, thereby causing massive canon problems with Star Wars. In addition to that I would like you to consider the shear number of Star Wars books that have been, and continue to be, printed. Publishing, especially Sci-Fi and Fantasy publishing, is a cut-throat business with incredibly thin profit margins on each book. As a result of this, if a series or author isn't selling well it is often the case that books will be pulled before publishing, no matter how much money has been pumped into it. The fact that the number of Star Wars novels, both for adults and younger readers, numbers in the hundreds, and that it is the largest collection of novels produced for one work attests to the fact that Star Wars is a significant part of Western culture. Oh and, "Blowing up planets with big laser guns is family friendly, is it?", given that a) it's the bad guys doing it, and b) when you consider what bad guys get up to today in 'U' and 'PG' rated films today....--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:The problem is that it's an enormous collection of trash-fiction. Why should CP have dozens of pages advertising books of no note or reputation? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

As I said, if the work didn't sell, they wouldn't continue to publish. The sheer size of the number of works says a lot about how much the public likes these works. It might not be your cup of tea, but it is others, a lot of others. It is also worth noting just how many of these works made it into the New York Times bestselling lists.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:That's your response? By that logic, we should fill the encyclopedia with advertising of Harlequin Romances, since they not only sell better than any other novels in existence, but are translated continually, creating an international following. CP is not a resource that ''advertises'' what the public likes. That's Wikipedia. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)

==Moved from Talk:The Thrawn Trilogy==

My the Lord save us from all this science fiction nonsense! Is this an encyclopaedia or a sales catalogue for George Lucas's wares? And don't tell me the 'message' justifies their inclusion, please. You'll be telling me the famous porno flick Emmanuel should be included next because it shows people living together in harmony. GloriaL 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:On the few days I've been at Conservapedia, I've noticed different users have different areas they like to focus on. If this user's focus is Star Wars, that's not a problem, because other users will do other things. Plus, from a search engine optimization perspective, if we have good, long articles on a niche subject, we can get high on the Google rankings for that subject and draw people to the remainder of our articles with things like this.-AlexanderM 12:02, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Then by that logic there should also be articles about bestiality and every other sickening depravity imaginable on the basis that it will drive perverted Googlers to the site! Is that niche enough for you, hmmm? Get real. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 12:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:Ieuan/The Thrawn Trilogy

2008-12-09T16:56:31Z

GloriaL: New page: My the Lord save us from all this science fiction nonsense! Is this an encyclopaedia or a sales catalogue for George Lucas's wares? And don't tell me the 'message' justifies their inclus...

My the Lord save us from all this science fiction nonsense! Is this an encyclopaedia or a sales catalogue for George Lucas's wares? And don't tell me the 'message' justifies their inclusion, please. You'll be telling me the famous porno flick Emmanuel should be included next because it shows people living together in harmony. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:48:31Z

GloriaL:

Does Hollywood Liberal George Lucas need all this publicity on Consevapedia? Is there not enough rubbish about "The Star Wars" on the Internet as it is? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't know whether George Lucas is a liberal or not, but Star Wars actually contains strong conservative messages about morality and personal responsibility. It's also much more family-friendly than the majority of Hollywood films today.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Blowing up planets with big laser guns is family friendly, is it? Oh and Lucas is a liberal all right: http://www.dondodd.com/publius/050202.html Do we really need to advertise his products in an encyclopaedia? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

: I was referring to the moral lessons about avoiding revenge in even the most trying circumstances - a good lesson in [[fortitude]]. Also, I don't remember any part of the Star Wars films where someone "blew up a planet with a big laser gun".

: I should probably stop this discussion now - I've made my points and this isn't really my decision to make.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You seem less aware of the works of your liberal hero Lucas than you let on. I've seen the first Star War film and the space station (Death Moon? Death Star?) blows up a whole planet with a big laser gun! It's there for all to see. This is a serious encyclopaedia and we shouldn't let Hollywood trivia bog it down. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: I never claimed to love the Star Wars films, and note that I haven't contributed to any of the Star Wars articles. I was just saying that there's a moral message to take from them, which a skilled preacher could use to turn young minds in the right direction. And even if the planet-destroying scene is present in the films as you describe, I doubt such behaviour is endorsed or allowed to go unpunished.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

So the Star films are only to be allowed if a preacher is on-hand to de-program the youth of America who have just watched them? A fanciful notion, to be sure, but I daresay it might work! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:48, 9 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:36:04Z

GloriaL:

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:35:42Z

GloriaL: you seem ignorant of the films you claim to love

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:26:11Z

GloriaL:

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:23:52Z

GloriaL:

Liberal bigotry

2008-12-09T16:14:46Z

GloriaL: put example in twice - fixed

'''Bigotry''' is the expression of [[hatred]] or [[aggression]] towards those who are different. Examples of bigotry include [[racism]] and [[religious intolerance]].

Bigotry is a common among [[atheists]], [[elitism|elitists]], [[liberals]], [[Muslims]] and [[homosexuals]] towards critics of their ideologies. Some liberals [[deceit|deceitfully]] claim to uphold equality of all viewpoints and free speech, but are in fact routinely prejudiced against opposing viewpoints. They are particularly bigoted against Christians (and indeed [[faith]] in general) and [[Family Values]]. It is typical to see liberals refer to their opponents as [[racism|racists]], [[fascists]], [[Nazis]], [[redneck|rednecks]], [[fanaticism|fanatics]], or any number of more profane slurs.

== Examples ==
* The infamous [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot]], in which gays maliciously attacked a church.
* Liberal and Pro-Abortion attacks on Pregnancy Centers <ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/458992.aspx</ref>
* Students threaten and verbally abuse a student wearing a McCain T-Shirt <ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column?page=1</ref>
* [[Gay rights]] supporters protested outside of Los Angeles' largest Mormon temple because members of the Mormon church gave millions of dollars to the campaigning for [[Proposition 8]], which banned homosexual marriage in [[California]]<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html</ref> 
* Gay rights protesters at a pro-Proposition 8 rally tore a cross out of an elderly woman's hands and stomped on it. They then proceeded to verbally accost the woman for at least 10 minutes, some of which was on live TV<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80711</ref>
* An ad for the campaign against Proposition 8 depicts Mormons as a type of religious [[gestapo]]<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80047</ref>
* Radical homosexual anarchists shouted profanities and blasphemies in a Michigan church, before unfurling a banner, throwing glitter and pulling the fire alarm<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/11/12/national-press-ignores-mi-media-whitewash-lansing-church-homosexual-anar</ref>
* Someone hacked the website of the Mormon church and replaced the front page with a video of gay porn <ref>http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html</ref>
* [[Bill Maher]]'s movie [[Religulous]] uses lies and distortions to mock most major religions<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76123</ref>
* The [[ACLU]] attempted to stop a Christian band from playing at a city festival<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80649</ref>
* [[New York Times]] correspondent Dan Mitchell allegedly sent a harassing [[Facebook]] email to a conservative correspondent for [[World Net Daily]]<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/11/03/ny-times-reporters-iat-again-facebook-miller-says-nb-contributor-vadum</ref> 
* [[Hate speech]] laws might be able to be used to ban the Bible<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78339</ref>
* Colorado law SB200 bans discriminatory references to homosexuals, which might include the Bible <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77383</ref>
* Liberal [[Paul Krugman]] calls [[Republican Party]] a haven for racists <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/03/krugman-gop-haven-racists-reactionaries</ref>
* Liberal Charles Karel Bouley calls for the death of [[Joe the Plumber]] <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/lib-radio-host-karel-calls-joe-wurzelbachers-death-air-obscenity-laced</ref> 
* [[Al Franken]] mocks Christians<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/22/media-skipping-over-al-frankens-acidulous-mockery-christians</ref>
* [[Democrat]] [[John Murtha]] called his constituents rednecks.
* [[Barack Obama]], an apparent [[Muslim]], accuses the public of clinging to guns and religion.
* [[Muslims]] in India rioted when an author critcized Islam <ref>http://www.times.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-riot.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{liberalism}}
[[category:psychology]]

User talk:Ieuan/X-wing: Solo Command

2008-12-09T16:10:41Z

GloriaL: New page: Does Hollywood Liberal George Lucas need all this publicity on Consevapedia? Is there not enough rubbish about "The Star Wars" on the Internet as it is? ~~~~

Liberal bigotry

2008-12-09T16:04:57Z

GloriaL:

'''Bigotry''' is the expression of [[hatred]] or [[aggression]] towards those who are different. Examples of bigotry include [[racism]] and [[religious intolerance]].

Bigotry is a common among [[atheists]], [[elitism|elitists]], [[liberals]], [[Muslims]] and [[homosexuals]] towards critics of their ideologies. Some liberals [[deceit|deceitfully]] claim to uphold equality of all viewpoints and free speech, but are in fact routinely prejudiced against opposing viewpoints. They are particularly bigoted against Christians (and indeed [[faith]] in general) and [[Family Values]]. It is typical to see liberals refer to their opponents as [[racism|racists]], [[fascists]], [[Nazis]], [[redneck|rednecks]], [[fanaticism|fanatics]], or any number of more profane slurs.

== Examples ==
* The infamous [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot]], in which gays maliciously attacked a church.
* Liberal and Pro-Abortion attacks on Pregnancy Centers <ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/458992.aspx</ref>
* Students threaten and verbally abuse a student wearing a McCain T-Shirt <ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column?page=1</ref>
* [[Gay rights]] supporters protested outside of Los Angeles' largest Mormon temple because members of the Mormon church gave millions of dollars to the campaigning for [[Proposition 8]], which banned homosexual marriage in [[California]]<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html</ref> 
* Gay rights protesters at a pro-Proposition 8 rally tore a cross out of an elderly woman's hands and stomped on it. They then proceeded to verbally accost the woman for at least 10 minutes, some of which was on live TV<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80711</ref>
* Muslims rioted when an author dared to criticize their beliefs <ref>addref</ref>
* An ad for the campaign against Proposition 8 depicts Mormons as a type of religious [[gestapo]]<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80047</ref>
* Radical homosexual anarchists shouted profanities and blasphemies in a Michigan church, before unfurling a banner, throwing glitter and pulling the fire alarm<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/11/12/national-press-ignores-mi-media-whitewash-lansing-church-homosexual-anar</ref>
* Someone hacked the website of the Mormon church and replaced the front page with a video of gay porn <ref>http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html</ref>
* [[Bill Maher]]'s movie [[Religulous]] uses lies and distortions to mock most major religions<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76123</ref>
* The [[ACLU]] attempted to stop a Christian band from playing at a city festival<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80649</ref>
* [[New York Times]] correspondent Dan Mitchell allegedly sent a harassing [[Facebook]] email to a conservative correspondent for [[World Net Daily]]<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/11/03/ny-times-reporters-iat-again-facebook-miller-says-nb-contributor-vadum</ref> 
* [[Hate speech]] laws might be able to be used to ban the Bible<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78339</ref>
* Colorado law SB200 bans discriminatory references to homosexuals, which might include the Bible <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77383</ref>
* Liberal [[Paul Krugman]] calls [[Republican Party]] a haven for racists <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/03/krugman-gop-haven-racists-reactionaries</ref>
* Liberal Charles Karel Bouley calls for the death of [[Joe the Plumber]] <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/lib-radio-host-karel-calls-joe-wurzelbachers-death-air-obscenity-laced</ref> 
* [[Al Franken]] mocks Christians<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/22/media-skipping-over-al-frankens-acidulous-mockery-christians</ref>
* [[Democrat]] [[John Murtha]] called his constituents rednecks.
* [[Barack Obama]], an apparent [[Muslim]], accuses the public of clinging to guns and religion.
* [[Muslims]] in India rioted when an author critcized Islam <ref>http://www.times.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-riot.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{liberalism}}
[[category:psychology]]

Douglas Adams

2008-12-09T13:59:06Z

GloriaL: minor fix

'''Douglas Adams''' was the author of the bestselling book ''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'', based on his scripts for the radio series of the same title.

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' was followed by ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', ''Life, The Universe, and Everything'', ''So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish'', and ''Mostly Harmless''. He also wrote two books about a figure named Dirk Gently; ''Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency'' and ''Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul''.

In 1990, Adams traveled around the world with zoologist Mark Carwardine to write ''Last Chance to See'', a book about endangered species and the people who work to help them. At the time of his death Adams was working on his eighth novel ''The Salmon of Doubt,'' which in its incomplete published form centers again on Dirk Gently, although Adams had spoken about the possibility of changing it to another Hitchhiker novel. The book also contains several short stories and essays, including discussion of the author's [[atheist|atheism]].

Adams also wrote a well known anecdote concerning the "Babel Fish" a creature that translated any language

<blockquote>
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

</blockquote>

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' started as a radio show on BBC in 1978 and has later been converted into novels, a TV-show, movies, a record album and a computer game.

Douglas Adams was born in Cambridge, UK, in March 1952 and died of heart attack in May 2001. He was an environmental activist, an avid technologist, and described himself as "a radical [[atheist]]." [[Richard Dawkins]], a close friend and fellow [[atheist]], dedicated his book "[[The God Delusion]]" to his memory.

During his life, he won three Golden Pans and several other awards. <ref>http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/bio.html</ref>

On Adams' death, Dawkins had the following to say about his friend:

<blockquote>
"Science has lost a friend, literature has lost a luminary, the mountain gorilla and the black rhino have lost a gallant defender (he once climbed Kilimanjaro in a rhino suit to raise money to fight the cretinous trade in rhino horn), Apple Computer has lost its most eloquent apologist. And I have lost an irreplaceable intellectual companion and one of the kindest and funniest men I ever met."<ref>http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html</ref>
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Adams, Douglas}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

CAMP

2008-12-09T13:45:30Z

GloriaL:

For Camp (aesthetic) see: [[Camp_(aesthetic)]]

'''CAMP''' is cyclic form of the nucleotide Adenine-monophosphate. It is a common secondary messenger in cellular signal transduction pathways.

==Quotations==
*The [[adenine]]-[[ribose]] combination is seen frequently enough to get a simpler name [[adenosine]]. This battery pack is called cyclic adenosine mono phosphate (mono because there is just one phosphate) or cAMP. <ref> [http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Muscle_Neuro/Protein-DNA/protein-dna.html The Big Polymers: RNA, DNA, Protein] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:genetics]]

CAMP

2008-12-09T13:44:41Z

GloriaL:

For Camp (aesthetic) see: [[Camp (Aesthetic)]]

'''CAMP''' is cyclic form of the nucleotide Adenine-monophosphate. It is a common secondary messenger in cellular signal transduction pathways.

==Quotations==
*The [[adenine]]-[[ribose]] combination is seen frequently enough to get a simpler name [[adenosine]]. This battery pack is called cyclic adenosine mono phosphate (mono because there is just one phosphate) or cAMP. <ref> [http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Muscle_Neuro/Protein-DNA/protein-dna.html The Big Polymers: RNA, DNA, Protein] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:genetics]]

CAMP

2008-12-09T13:43:38Z

GloriaL:

For Camp (aesthetics) see: [[Camp (Aesthetics)]]

'''CAMP''' is cyclic form of the nucleotide Adenine-monophosphate. It is a common secondary messenger in cellular signal transduction pathways.

==Quotations==
*The [[adenine]]-[[ribose]] combination is seen frequently enough to get a simpler name [[adenosine]]. This battery pack is called cyclic adenosine mono phosphate (mono because there is just one phosphate) or cAMP. <ref> [http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Muscle_Neuro/Protein-DNA/protein-dna.html The Big Polymers: RNA, DNA, Protein] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:genetics]]

Camp (aesthetic)

2008-12-09T13:36:13Z

GloriaL: New page: Camp is a sensibility that revels in artifice, stylization, theatricalization, irony, playfulness, and exaggeration rather than content, according to Susan Sontag.<ref>http://www.cla.purdu...

Camp is a sensibility that revels in artifice, stylization, theatricalization, irony, playfulness, and exaggeration rather than content, according to Susan Sontag.<ref>http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/postmodernism/terms/camp.html</ref>

Richard Feynman

2008-12-09T13:27:08Z

GloriaL:

[[Image:Htdeyt56.png|right|thumb]]
'''Richard Feynman''' (1918-1988) was an American [[physicist]] and [[atheist.]]<ref>http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Richard_Feynman</ref>

After studying at [[M.I.T.]] and [[Princeton University]], he assisted in the development of the [[atomic bomb]] at [[Los Alamos]]. He credits his education in reading an encyclopedia when he was young, at the insistence of his father.<ref>Review of ''Classic Feynman: All the Adventures of a Curious Character, by R.P. Feynman'' by Robert Matthews [http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/47/8/1391.pdf]</ref>

Feynman's major contribution was to [[quantum electrodynamics]]. He introduced the diagrams, now called [[Feynman diagrams]], which are used to describe the behaviour of systems of interacting particles. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965.

Feynman liked to tell a story about how when he was a little kid, he asked his father, "Why do things fall?" As an adult, he praised his father for answering, "Nobody knows why things fall. It's a deep mystery, and the smartest people in the world don't know the basic reason for it." Contrast that with the average person's off-the-cuff answer, "Oh, it's because of gravity." Feynman liked his father's answer, because his father realized that simply giving a name to something didn't mean that you understood it. <ref>Lectures in Physics: The Motion of Falling Objects. Lectures on Physics is based on the series by Benjamin Crowell, "Light and Matter". (This is a secondary source.) [http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_05_01.html]</ref>

He had a leading role in the investigation of the crash of the [[space shuttle]] Challenger ("behind-the-scenes descriptions of [[science and policy]] colliding" <ref>Amazon.com - sale page for ''What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character'' (Paperback)
by Richard P. Feynman [http://www.amazon.com/What-Care-Other-People-Think/dp/0553347845]</ref>).

Feynman cut through the red tape and figured out what caused the [[Space Shuttle Challenger|Challenger disaster]].
*I took this stuff that I got out of your seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it, it doesn't stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees.
His style of investigating with his own direct methods rather than following the commission schedule put him at odds with Rogers, who once commented, "Feynman is becoming a real pain." During a televised hearing, Feynman famously demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water.<ref name=NYT_Feynman>{{cite web| url = http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/21/reviews/feynman-obit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |title = Richard Feynman Dead at 69; Leading Theoretical Physicist|accessdate = 2007-01-28|author = Gleick, James|date = 1988-02-17|work = New York Times}}</ref>

Feynman was so critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture" that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle. He argued that the estimates of reliability offered by [[NASA]] management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."<ref name = appendixF>Feynman, Richard P. (1986) http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle]</ref>
*NASA officials argue that ... since the Shuttle is a manned vehicle "the probability of mission success is necessarily very close to 1.0." It is not very clear what this phrase means. Does it mean it is close to 1 or that it ought to be close to 1? <ref name = "appendixF"/>

==Books==
*''Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!'' - his personal and academic life up to the 1960s
*''What Do You Care What Other People Think?'' - half the book is about the Challenger disaster
*''QED- A accessible explanation of quantum electrodynamics written for a layman.
*''The meaning of it all- A book of philosophy.

==Notes==

<References/>

==External links==

[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Feynman.html Biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Feynman, Richard}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Physicists]]

Stephen Hawking

2008-12-09T13:05:27Z

GloriaL:

[[Image:Bvfgdtre.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Stephen Hawking''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[physicist]] and [[author]]. He was born on January 8, 1942.

Despite suffering from [[Motor Neurone Disease]] for most of his adult life he has written books popularizing [[science]]. His most famous books are ''[[A Brief History of Time]]'',''[[Black Holes and Baby Universes]]'' and ''[[The Universe in a Nutshell]]''.

Hawking is credited with the development, although not the origin, of the [[Big Bang]] Theory of the [[creation]] of the [[universe]]. He theorized that information can escape from a [[black hole]] in the form of [[Hawking Radiation]] wherein virtual dual particles will came close to the [[Event Horizon]] of a [[black hole]]. One half of the virtual dual particle will escape the pull of gravity, taking with it the information of the second virtual particle. It is thought that this eventually will cause the evaporation of the [[black hole]]<ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref>. He is also credited with advancing the understandings of [[black holes]]. Since 1979 he has been the [[Lucasian Professor of Mathematics]] at [[Cambridge University]], a post once held by [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Paul Dirac]].<ref>[http://www.hawking.org.uk Stephen W. Hawking's webpages]</ref>

Stephen Hawking combines his research with family life and acts to popularize science. He has appeared on [[The Simpsons]] and [[Star Trek|Star Trek: The Next Generation]] [[TV]] shows and contributed vocals through his speech synthesizer to the [[Pink Floyd]] album [[The Division Bell]] on the track [[Keep Talking]].

Hawking has been divorced twice. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531891/Hawking-and-second-wife-agree-to-divorce.html</ref> It is not known if his disabilites are a punishment from God for his deviation from Biblical authority.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physicists|Hawking, Stephen]]

Stephen Hawking

2008-12-09T13:05:03Z

GloriaL:

[[Image:Bvfgdtre.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Stephen Hawking''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[physicist]] and [[author]]. He was born on January 8, 1942.

Despite suffering from [[Motor Neurone Disease]] for most of his adult life he has written books popularizing [[science]]. His most famous books are ''[[A Brief History of Time]]'',''[[Black Holes and Baby Universes]]'' and ''[[The Universe in a Nutshell]]''.

Hawking is credited with the development, although not the origin, of the [[Big Bang]] Theory of the [[creation]] of the [[universe]]. He theorized that information can escape from a [[black hole]] in the form of [[Hawking Radiation]] wherein virtual dual particles will came close to the [[Event Horizon]] of a [[black hole]]. One half of the virtual dual particle will escape the pull of gravity, taking with it the information of the second virtual particle. It is thought that this eventually will cause the evaporation of the [[black hole]]<ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref>. He is also credited with advancing the understandings of [[black holes]]. Since 1979 he has been the [[Lucasian Professor of Mathematics]] at [[Cambridge University]], a post once held by [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Paul Dirac]].<ref>[http://www.hawking.org.uk Stephen W. Hawking's webpages]</ref>

Stephen Hawking combines his research with family life and acts to popularize science. He has appeared on [[The Simpsons]] and [[Star Trek|Star Trek: The Next Generation]] [[TV]] shows and contributed vocals through his speech synthesizer to the [[Pink Floyd]] album [[The Division Bell]] on the track [[Keep Talking]].

Hawking has been divorced twice. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531891/Hawking-and-second-wife-agree-to-divorce.html</ref> It is not known if his disabibilites are a punishment from God for his deviation from Biblical authority.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physicists|Hawking, Stephen]]

Moon

2008-12-09T12:50:31Z

GloriaL:

{{Planet|image=Moon2.jpg
|caption=The Moon one week after [[full moon]]
|primary=Earth
|periapsis=363,300 km<ref name=moonfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html Moon Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 3, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=405,500 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|semimajor=384,400 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_elem Planetary Satellite Mean Orbital Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|orbitradius=378,000 km
|eccentricity=0.0549<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|sidereal=27.3217 da
|synodic=29.530588 da
|orbitspeed=1.023 km/s
|inclination=18.28°<ref name=moonfact/>
|siderealday=27.3217 da<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|solarday=29.530588 da
|mass=7.35 * 1022 (1.23% earth)<ref name=moonfact/>
|density=3350 kg/m³<ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par Planetary Satellite Physical Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|surfacegrav=1.62 m/s² (0.165 ''g'')<ref name=moonfact/>
|escapespeed=2.38 km/s<ref name=moonfact/>
|meanradius=1737.1 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdphys/>
|equatorradius =1738.1 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|polarradius =1736.0 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|surfacearea=37,919,000 km² (7.434% earth)
|mintemp=100 K
|meantemp=250 K
|maxtemp=400 K
|albedo=0.12<ref name=moonfact/>
|pmdm=1.3 * 1015 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.73 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=364 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=252.3 a<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
}}The '''Moon''' is a natural [[satellite]] orbiting the [[Earth]] at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km).

Unlike most planets in the [[solar system]], [[Earth]] has only one moon. To those on Earth the Moon appears as a pale disc which goes through phases in which greater or lesser amounts of the side lit by the sun are visible from Earth.

==The Moon as God's creation==

The Earth's moon has several striking characteristics. To many, these characteristics appear as "clues" or "hints" left by God for men to discover. <ref>http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-phase/CALENDARS.htm</ref>

===Size of its disc===

The Moon appears to have the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal solar eclipses. The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero.

===Rotation and revolution===

The Moon presents the same side to [[Earth]] at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of the revolution of the Moon. Physical explanations rely on [[tidal locking]], asserting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until its same face always presents to the Earth.<ref> The same theory suggested that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. [[Mercury]]'s tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.</ref> In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the [[Earth]] on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.<ref>"[http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM Chapter 8, Section 3: The Rotation of the Moon]," "Astronomy Today", Department of Physics, Fort Lewis College, Durango, [[Colorado|CO]]. Accessed February 18, 2008</ref>

===Origin theories===

[[Atheistic]] theories of the [[origin of the Moon]], widely taught for decades despite lacking the falsifiability requirement of science (see [[Philosophy of science]]), have been proven false.<ref>Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref> Lacking any other [[atheistic]] alternatives, some scientists assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the [[iron]]-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref> This theory, however, is contrary to key observations of the Moon, such as the relatively low levels of [[iron]] in the Moon's crust. Additional tests fail to support the [[atheistic]] theory.<ref>J. H. Jones: [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis]</ref> Biblical history records the Moon being created on the fourth day of [[creation week]], along with the Sun.

===Rate of recession===

The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance], LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.</ref>, and is believed by mainstream scientists to be 4.6 billion years old <ref>NASA, [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-15-2.html Apollo Expeditions to the Moon], Chapter 15.2.</ref>. The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.<ref name="js">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/764/ The moon: the light that rules the night], ''Creation'' 20(4):36–39, September 1998.</ref> If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles. However, the rate of recession would not have been constant, but would have been greater in the past, so that extrapolating backwards in time results in the moon being in contact with the earth 1.37 billion years ago,<ref name="js" /> seemingly (if the assumptions stated above are correct) contradicting the view of an [[Old Earth]] promoted by [[atheists]].

===Impact Craters===
Uniformitarian astronomers assume that crater impacts are a reliable indicator of the age of a celestial body. True to the form and principles of [[uniformitarianism]] (as applied to [[astronomy]] rather than to [[geology]]), any such estimation relies upon uniform constants and weather/erosion trends. Recent research into crater impacts on the moon suggests that many of the assumptions previously made are unwarranted. Bonnie Buratti of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has asserted that space weathering "takes place very rapidly on the Moon."<ref>David, Leonard. "[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/lunar_impact_021214.html Lunar Crash of 1953: Impact Crater Identified]." <http://www.space.com>, December 14, 2002. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref> Peter Brown of the University of Western Ontario insists that there is no absolute criteria for the dating of craters.<ref>Hecht, Jeff. "[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3242 New crater revives Moon mystery]." <http://www.newscientist.com>, January 11, 2003. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref>

Danny Faulkner of the [[Institute for Creation Research]] has observed that many of the lunar maria contain ''ghost craters'', or craters that the lava flow that produced the maria seem to have filled only partially. In the [[deep time]] scale required by [[uniformitarianism]], the ghost craters are the result of impacts that occurred as much as half a gigayear before the crust-fracturing impacts that caused the lava flows.<ref name=Henderson>Henderson, Thomas H. "[http://www.hal-pc.org/~tom/HeavyCratering.html Do heavily cratered planets and moons demand an old age for the solar system]?" ''Tom Henderson's Creation Resources'', July 25, 2003. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> This is not a reasonable assumption, because any impact strong enough to crack the crust should have obliterated any craters previously extant. Faulkner thus concludes that the impacts that formed the ghost craters, and those that let loose the lava flows that formed the maria, occurred within days of one another<ref name=Faulkner1>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/ The Current State of Creation Astronomy]." ''Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism,'' Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 201–216, August 3-8, 1998. Hosted at ''[[Institute for Creation Research]].'' Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> and were probably part of at least one system-wide catastrophe involving a narrow stream of meteoroids and/or comets that delivered a concentrated bombardment of the Earth and Moon in a short interval.<ref name=Faulkner2>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1637 A Biblically-based cratering theory]." ''Technical Journal'' (now ''Journal of Creation''), 13(1):100-104, April 1999.</ref>

Faulkner assumes that this system-wide catastrophe occurred during the year of the [[Great Flood]]. But in 1984, Russell Humphreys, then at the Sandia National Laboratories, developed evidence suggesting different dates entirely. Specifically, the [[Project Apollo]] exploration teams brought back many samples of [[basalt]] (an [[igneous rock]]) and [[brecchia]] (pulverized meteor-impact remains). Geologists analyzed both types of samples and found evidence that each type of rock had once been in a magnetic field far more powerful than that which the Moon has today. Using his model for the creation and decay of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/>, Humphreys determined that the basalt had been laid down about 370 years after creation, and the brecchia had been laid down 1840 years after creation, or about 190 years after the Flood.<ref name=Humphreys2>Humphreys reasoned that the higher the magnetic dipole moment of the samples, the earlier in lunar history they were formed.</ref> These findings clearly suggest that the Moon, and presumably all other bodies in the solar system, have been subject to two separate system-wide bombardments, one occurring in the second or third generation after the [[fall of man]] and the other occurring well after the Flood.

==Tides==

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. The Moon's rotation is locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

==The "dark" or far side==

The phrase "the ''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

The far side of the moon is far more heavily cratered than the near, and the predominant type of cratering is consistent with brecchia-forming meteor impact. This would suggest that the far side suffered its bombardment in the latter of the two catastrophes that Humphreys suggests that the Moon has suffered.

Due to a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion called ''libration,'' we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.

[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

:"I saw the new moon late yestreen
::With the old moon in her arm;
:And if we go to sea, master,
::I fear we'll come to harm."

==Earthshine==

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow [[crescent]]. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an [[astronaut]] standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snow-pack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

==Lunar calendars==

Throughout history, many calendar systems have been based on the phases of the moon.

The months of the [[Islam|Muslim]] [[calendar]] are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in [[Pakistan]] and [[Jordan]], hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain precisely when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by [[astronomy|astronomical]] rules.

==The moon in culture==

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

:Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
::The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
:The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
::Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

== Trivia==
Although the Moon is often described as revolving around the Earth, this is slightly inaccurate: the Earth and the Moon ''both'' revolve around their ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]]. This point is 1,700 below the earth's surface, which is about 1/4 of the earth's [[radius]].<ref> The radius of the Earth is 6,378 kilometers, so that means that the barycenter is located INSIDE the Earth about 1707 kilometers below its surface. [http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q665.html] </ref>

The combined motion is like an athlete performing an [[Olympics| Olympic]] hammer throw: one object swings in a large circle, the other almost pivots around a fixed point but actually performs a small opposing circle of its own. <ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the [[Sun]] in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the [[science]] of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y''). (Note, however, that the apsides of the orbits of the [[Project Apollo]] spacecraft were always called ''pericynthion'' and ''apocynthion'', not "periselene" and "aposelene.")

== Other moons ==
[[Image:Many_Moons.jpg|250px|left]]
While the Moon of [[Earth]] is the best-known satellite of any [[planet]], other planets in our solar system also have moons. Earth has the least number of moons (one), while [[Jupiter]] has sixty-two. The first extraterrestrial moons to be discovered were the four Galilean moons ([[Io]], [[Europa (moon)|Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]]. Next to these, Earth's Moon is one of the largest, but Jupiter and [[Saturn]] have moons in orbit about them that might qualify as planets if they orbited the [[Sun]] instead.

=== Sizes of moons ===
Most moons in the solar system are no larger than typical asteroids. They are of irregular shape, have light and variable surface gravities, and are often unstable in their orbits. [[Phobos]] and [[Deimos]], the moons of [[Mars]], fall into this category.

Earth's own moon is an example of a [[dwarf planet]]-sized moon. These moons are so large that their own self-gravity forces them to collapse into spheres or spheroids. Some of them, like [[Ganymede]] and [[Titan (moon)|Titan]], are larger even than the planet [[Mercury]]. Earth's moon was, of course, known to the ancients, but the remaining dwarf-planet-sized moons were generally the first to be discovered in orbit around any given primary. [[Galileo Galilei]] discovered the first four of these in orbit about [[Jupiter]] early in the seventeenth century; [[Christiaan Huygens]] then discovered Titan of [[Saturn]] later in that same century.

== Symoblic Importance in Islam ==
The crescent moon is an internationally recognised symbol of the [[faith]] of [[Islam]]. It appears on the flags of several Islamic nations and forms part of the official emblem of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Socoeties. <ref>http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]
== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

== Notes and References ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Solarsystem}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Consciousness

2008-12-07T22:50:47Z

GloriaL:

'''Consciousness''' is the quality or state of being aware. <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness</ref> To be conscious in the philosophical sense means to have mental processes that are self-directed <ref>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fDMNg2y9UN8C&pg=PA161&dq=consciousness+%22self-directedness%22</ref> and which provide a locus of subjective experience.<ref>http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm</ref> Animals are alleged to possess a form of consciousness <ref>http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v5/psyche-5-16-saidel.html</ref> although this is not necessarily to be equated with the Christian notion of having moral worth or an immortal soul.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448</ref>

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:psychology]]

Ghost

2008-12-07T21:01:55Z

GloriaL: minor edit to defintion

A '''Ghost''' is a concept embraced by the [[New Age]] belief system whereby deceased beings somehow manifest themselves in a personal way to the living. Travel agents in [[Britain]] claim that it has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

"Ghosts" in this sense are not biblical, and Christianity rejects the concept of a human ghost.

In the [[New Age]] belief system, ghosts may result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul would thereby struggle to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Under this non-Christian belief system, many ghosts would be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others would roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]

Consciousness

2008-12-07T21:00:28Z

GloriaL:

'''Consciousness''' is the quality or state of being aware. <ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness</ref> To be conscious in the philosophical sense means to have mental processes that are self-directed <ref>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fDMNg2y9UN8C&pg=PA161&dq=consciousness+%22self-directedness%22</ref> and which provide a locus of subjective experience.<ref>http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm</ref> Animals are alleged to possess a form of consciousness <ref>http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v5/psyche-5-16-saidel.html</ref> although this is not to be equated with the Christian notion of having moral worth or an immortal soul.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448</ref>

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:psychology]]

Ghost

2008-12-07T20:43:11Z

GloriaL: further tidying

A '''Ghost''' is the spirit of a dead being that manifests itself in our world. It is regarded that [[Britain]] has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

"Ghosts" in this sense are not biblical.

Ghosts are often believed to be the result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul then struggles to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Many ghosts seem to be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]

Ghost

2008-12-07T20:41:05Z

GloriaL:

A '''Ghost''' is a human spirit that manifests itself in our world. It is regarded that [[Britain]] has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

"Ghosts" in this sense are not biblical.

Ghosts are often believed to be the result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul then struggles to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Many ghosts seem to be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]

Talk:Ghost

2008-12-07T20:39:49Z

GloriaL:

Whilst i don't personally believe in ghosts, the statement that ghosts 'don't of course exist' could be seen as debatable. What about the Holy Ghost, for example? The point that belief in ghosts is merely a belief, not a fact, is clearly made at the beginning of this article, so the final statement is perhaps un-necessary, and quite contradictory with the rest of the article?--Eyupdutch 08:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Without really addressing your question, the Holy Ghost doesn't count here. It's really a different meaning of the word. The Holy Ghost is '''certainly''' not the "ghost" of Jesus Christ, for example.

:One could certainly believe in the Holy Ghost without believing that when ordinary people die, they leave visible ghosts behind.

:I agree that the article has a number of problems. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

It was wrong for the article to say a ghost is "believed" to be a spirit that haunts people. That's like saying orange is "believed" to be the colour that results when red and yellow pigments are mixed. A ghost is a spirit - that's its definition. Its ontological status is a separate issue. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 12:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I took out the reference to "haunts people" because it not an essential part of its definition. One can conceive of a ghost without it actively haunting someone.[[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 15:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Ghost

2008-12-07T20:38:17Z

GloriaL: further tightening of definition

A '''Ghost''' is a human spirit reputed to manifest itself in our world. It is regarded that [[Britain]] has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

"Ghosts" in this sense are not biblical.

Ghosts are often believed to be the result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul then struggles to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Many ghosts seem to be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]

Talk:Consciousness

2008-12-07T19:41:47Z

GloriaL: New page: Consciousness is not unique to humans. Are you not confusing consciousness with having a soul? Otherwise you're saying you can't tell the difference between a dog that is unconscious and...

Consciousness is not unique to humans. Are you not confusing consciousness with having a soul? Otherwise you're saying you can't tell the difference between a dog that is unconscious and a dog that is conscious! [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 14:41, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Time

2008-12-07T19:38:36Z

GloriaL:

''Um, no, actually. Time is a TEMPORAL dimension. The fourth dimension is the fourth SPATIAL dimension. See Wikipedia for more information.''

How can time be both an abstract concept and a dimension of reality? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:15, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19726391.500-is-time-an-illusion.html it doesn't exist at all] I say we delete the whole article. --[[User:ThomasGerbil|ThomasGerbil]] 23:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)

It seems odd that the legal definition takes up so much space. It would give a student a misleading impression of its importance relative to the concept as a whole. I will fix this once I compose a better definition. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 14:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Consciousness

2008-12-07T19:34:12Z

GloriaL: sloppy definition tidied up

'''Consciousness''' is a mental state characterised by self-awareness and self-directedness. A conscious being is any that can be said to have a subjective mental viewpoint.

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:psychology]]

Talk:Ghost

2008-12-07T19:21:35Z

GloriaL: edit for grammar

Talk:Ghost

2008-12-07T17:46:30Z

GloriaL:

Whilst i don't personally believe in ghosts, the statement that ghosts 'don't of course exist' could be seen as debatable. What about the Holy Ghost, for example? The point that belief in ghosts is merely a belief, not a fact, is clearly made at the beginning of this article, so the final statement is perhaps un-necessary, and quite contradictory with the rest of the article?--Eyupdutch 08:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Without really addressing your question, the Holy Ghost doesn't count here. It's really a different meaning of the word. The Holy Ghost is '''certainly''' not the "ghost" of Jesus Christ, for example.

:One could certainly believe in the Holy Ghost without believing that when ordinary people die, they leave visible ghosts behind.

:I agree that the article has a number of problems. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

It was wrong for the article to say a ghost is "believed" to be a spirit that haunts people. That's like saying orange is "believed" to be the colour that results when red and yellow pigments are mixed. A ghost is a spirit - that's it's definition. Its ontological status is a separate issue. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 12:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Ghost

2008-12-07T17:45:12Z

GloriaL:

Whilst i don't personally believe in ghosts, the statement that ghosts 'don't of course exist' could be seen as debatable. What about the Holy Ghost, for example? The point that belief in ghosts is merely a belief, not a fact, is clearly made at the beginning of this article, so the final statement is perhaps un-necessary, and quite contradictory with the rest of the article?--Eyupdutch 08:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Without really addressing your question, the Holy Ghost doesn't count here. It's really a different meaning of the word. The Holy Ghost is '''certainly''' not the "ghost" of Jesus Christ, for example.

:One could certainly believe in the Holy Ghost without believing that when ordinary people die, they leave visible ghosts behind.

:I agree that the article has a number of problems. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

It was wrong for the article to say a ghost is "believed" to be a spirit that haunts people. That's like saying orange is "believed" to be the colour that results when red and yellow pigments are mixed. A ghost is a spirit - that's it's definition. Its ontological status is a separate issue.

Ghost

2008-12-07T17:43:08Z

GloriaL: edit for sense

A '''Ghost''' is a spirit that haunts people. It is regarded that [[Britain]] has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

Ghosts are often believed to be the result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul then struggles to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Many ghosts seem to be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]