Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Heavy metal music

2012-09-12T18:58:23Z

Gtbob12: /* Criticism */

'''Heavy metal''' is a musical genre that was developed mainly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, heavy metal is primarily noted for an emphasis on distortion, palm muting, aggressive lyrical content, bass-heavy sounds, as well as the influence of blues scales and classical structures. Heavy Metal has also spawned numerous sub genres which omit or improve upon standard technique, or invent new one altogether, giving heavy metal as a genre an impressive variety of styles and sounds. Heavy metal's origins are both rooted in the cultural upheavals that occurred during the 1960s, such as the conflict in Vietnam and the reevaluation and mass rejection of previous social schema, and the enormous influence of bands such as [[The Jimi Hendrix Experience]], [[Led Zeppelin]], and [[Black Sabbath]] that are regarded as proto-metal as well as hard rock. Other musical influences include psychedelic rock, blues rock, and the still developing progressive rock genre. Though heavy metal initially borrowed heavily from the blues in terms of playing style, this was later largely discarded by future metal acts such as [[Judas Priest]].

The first style of rock which grew from this was distorted [[blues]] sound created by [[San Francisco]] based [[psychedelia]] band, '''Blue Cheer''', whose influence on electric blues bands could be seen from [[Cream (rock band)|Cream]] to [[Jimi Hendrix]] to '''ZZ Top'''. The second style was [[progressive rock]], which in 1968 was led by [[England|English]] band '''King Crimson''', combining jazz, classical, experimental, psychedelic and folk music. The precursor to this sound was [[The Beatles]], arguably the first band to leave the standard rock format, creating longer song structures, many of which were narrative or [[opera|neo-operatic]]. This was the main inspiration for later bands such as '''Camel''', [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] and [[Yes (band)|Yes]].

By 1969, the influence of these seminal artists had saturated those parts of the public consciousness which were focused on rock music as a developing art form, and contributed to the explosion of hard rock by, for example, [[Led Zeppelin]] and [[Deep Purple]] and the so-called "proto-metal" of '''Black Sabbath'''. This year is now seen as the watershed moment in the development of what soon became heavy metal.

Black Sabbath originally began as an electric blues outfit named "Earth", but after discovering there was already a band using that name, changed to Black Sabbath after the 1964 [[Boris Karloff]] movie of the same name. Developing a new sound that was born both out of a change in attitude and the loss of lead Guitarist Tony Iommi's finger tips, Black Sabbath are largely credited with developing the more heavily distorted and crunchy elements that later became staples of the heavy metal style.

==1970s==
In 1973 the leading exponents of heavy metal were undoubtedly Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath, each having a technical prowess and a compositional inventiveness unseen before in mainstream popular music. This era also marked the beginnings of [[Satanism|Satanic]] imagery and of the spectacular, energetic live shows which became a hallmark of later heavy metal spin offs. Led Zeppelin's [[guitar|guitarist]] Jimmy Page had a strong personal fascination with the [[occult]], while many of Black Sabbath's lyrics dealt with it as well. Unlike many future bands, however, Black Sabbath never claimed to be Satanic. Singer Ozzy Osbourne claims that they were actually looking for a way to tap into the success and popularity of the horror genre, where people willingly paid to see a movie or read a novel intended solely to frighten them; to do so, they began to purposely write dark, ominous songs in an attempt to be music's answer to horror films.

Live shows were becoming bigger and more theatrical, notably Led Zeppelin's "rock till you drop" performances lasting two hours, and Alice Cooper's colossal shows following in the American tradition of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, promising "The Greatest Show On Earth". Cooper's shows featured [[boa]] constrictors, horrific freak-show mannequins, and dramatic fake-beheading scenes. Other key artists that emerged at this time included High Tide, Black Cat Bones, Black Widow, Uriah Heep, UFO and Blue Oyster Cult, and glam rockers Kiss. Each of the four members of Kiss took the on-stage persona of a cartoon-like character using elaborate face make-up and a science fiction style clothing. Another American band, Aerosmith, took the basic R 'n' B and rock 'n' roll structures of bands such as the Faces and Rolling Stones and transformed them into a new harder form. The late 70s saw a decline in the popularity of heavy metal, as the Punk movement, beginning in 1976, dominated the musical counterculture.

==1980s==
During the early 1970s three British bands were formed that would arguably become the most dramatically influential of the genre during the 1980s: [[Judas Priest]], Motorhead, and [[Iron Maiden]]. The 1980s also gave rise to the American thrash metal movement with notable bands being [[Metallica]], [[Megadeth]], Anthrax, and Slayer. During the 1980s [[Glam Metal]] also became very popular with bands including Twisted Sister, Def Leppard, and [[Stryper]].

==1990s==
The advent of Grunge in the early 90s is seen as the end of Glam Metal dominance. Nirvana's 'Nevermind' caused widespread public interest in alternative forms of music. [[Groove Metal]] became popular with Pantera's 'Cowboys from Hell' and Sepultura's 'Chaos AD'. The normally marginalized sub-genres of metal, that began forming in the early to mid 80s, soon enjoyed much wider exposure. [[Black Metal]], especially in the Scandinavian countries, began to see a huge rise in popularity<ref>fact</ref>. [[Marduk]], [[Mayhem]], and [[Burzum]] were see at the forefront of the early black metal scene, and continued to see popularity due to the controversies that surrounded the bands, such as Marduk's fascination with the Third Reich and anti-christian lyrical content; the murder of Mayhem's lead guitarist Euronymous by Burzum's Varg Vikernes, as well as the lyrical content and album themes of everything post 'Deathcrush'.

==Criticism==

Due to its association with the counter culture movement and the more extreme forms that it has taken over the years, heavy metal has faced criticism from parents groups, school administrators, politicians, music critics, and religious organizations.

A musicologist wrote:

:The development of heavy metal music in the '60s and its continuing popularity through the '70s, '80s, and '90s coincides, for one thing, with the period of the greatest popularity horror films and books have ever known. Both mark a transitional moment in our history: the end of Pax Americana; new economic crises; de-industrialization, the decline of unions and the rise of low-pay service jobs; revelations of corrupt leadership; powerful social movements challenging dominant policies on race, gender, ecology, and consumer rights; new challenges to the stability of social institutions such as the family; and redefinitions of political themes such as freedom. Much of the culture of the past twenty years has functioned to restore the sense of security undermined by these disruptions. Heavy metal, like horror films, has provided ways of producing meaning in an irrational society. <ref>[http://www.superseventies.com/stairway.html Dr. Robert Walser, Professor of Musicology, Dartmouth College] - author of ''Running With the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music''</ref>

Heavy metal music has been known to glamorize anti-Christian practices such as Satanism, homosexuality, promiscuity, Nazizm<ref>[[Black Metal#National Socialist Black Metal|National Socialist Black Metal]]</ref>, drug abuse, occultism, and bestiality. Despite this, there are bands with all of the musical characteristics of heavy metal--fast drums, distorted guitars, screamed or growled vocals, that put forth a Christian message. This genre is known as [[Christian metal]], and is also sometimes referred to as White metal or unblack metal.

Artists that are not specifically Christian music but are Christians personally include Zakk Wylde (Ozzy Osbourne, Black Label Society), Alice Cooper, Ted Nugent, Rob Halford, and Dave Mustaine, among others.

==Etymology==
The term was first used in a musical context by [[Canada|Canadian]] rock band '''Steppenwolf''' in their 1968 hit record<ref>Billboard Hot 100 singles chart: highest position #2</ref> ''Born To Be Wild'', which contained the line: "I like smoke and lightning, heavy metal thunder..." The song received worldwide exposure the following year when it was used in the soundtrack of the 1969 [[counterculture]] movie ''[[Easy Rider]]''. However, the phrase "heavy metal" had previously been used in 1962 by [[William Burroughs]] in his novel ''The Soft Machine'',<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133290 ISBN-13: 978-0802133298</ref> which contained a character named "Uranian Willy, the Heavy Metal Kid". In 1964, he used it to describe mass technological destruction to the point of biological toxicity in his novel ''Nova Express''.<ref>ISBN-10: 0802133304 ISBN-13: 978-0802133304 </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[Black Metal]]
[[Christian Metal]]

[[Category:Rock & Roll]]

King of the Hill

2012-08-19T15:41:48Z

Gtbob12:

'''''King of the Hill''''' was an animated show on [[Fox Network|Fox]] beginning in 1997 and ending in 2009. It consisted over 200 episodes. Created by Mike Judge, the creator of ''[[Beavis and Butthead]]'', the show was surprisingly different in nature.

The show is based on a stereotypical conservative [[Texan]] family, and has a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor. Hank Hill, the father of the Hill family, seems to always do what is right despite the circumstances or ramifications. Hank often learns to be more open minded and accepting of others, while others learn that there is value in his traditional ways as well.

American [[TV Parental Guidelines]] rates this show TV-14DL.<ref>Programs issued the TV-14 rating are usually unsuitable for children under the age of 14, with D indicating some suggestive dialogue and L indicating mild language.</ref>

Fundamental truths and [[Jesus]] is a common theme in most episodes.

King of the Hill is still frequently aired in reruns.

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118375/ IMDB website]
* [http://christianclips.com/videos/entertainment/King_of_the_Hill_Church Christian Clips Hank & Family]
* [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20090810fox01 Series finale announcement]

[[Category: Television Shows]]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-07-05T14:44:43Z

Gtbob12: /* Some issues with this list */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-07-01T18:09:17Z

Gtbob12: /* Some issues with this list */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure what medication you are taking, but you might wish to ask your doctor to adjust your dosage. Does anyone want to address content of article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:28, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-07-01T17:55:12Z

Gtbob12: /* Some issues with this list */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure what medication you are taking, but you might wish to ask your doctor to adjust your dosage. Does anyone want to address content of article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:28, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Nation of Islam

2011-09-06T14:09:09Z

Gtbob12:

[[File:Nation of Islam members.jpg|thumb|''Nation of Islam'' members in their trademark bow ties and suits.]]
The '''Nation of Islam''' is a political and religious group with a [[race]]-based, pro-black philosophy. The group was founded in [[Detroit]], Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. It is active primarily in America.

They believe that [[African Americans|black people]] are [[racial superiority|racially superior]] to other races, and that the "blue-eyed devils" (whites) were selectively bred from blacks by an evil black scientist named Yakub, whose work supposedly took hundreds of years for him and his disciples to fully whiten his creations, with the intent to enslave the black race.

The Nation of Islam teaches that founder W.D. Fard was God incarnate and that Elijah Muhammad was a prophet. Traditional Islam teaches that no human can be an incarnation of God and that Muhammad was the last prophet. As NOI teachings contradict the first pillar of Islam in two ways, and due to their teachings on race, a subject that the Qu'ran is silent on, the Nation of Islam is not considered Islam by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

{{Clear}}
==Notable members==
*[[Elijah Muhammad]]
*[[Louis Farrakhan]]
*[[Malcolm X]] (Later broke away from NOI and became a mainstream [[Muslim]], changing his name to ''Malcolm Shabazz''.)
*[[Muhammad Ali]] (His ties to the NOI were severed after a dispute regarding his divorce.)

== External links ==

*[http://www.muhajabah.com/noi.htm The "Nation of Islam" is not Islam.]
*[http://www.islamicgarden.com/article1037.html The Nation of Islam: Fact or Fraud?] The Islamic Garden.

[[Category:Nation of Islam]]
[[Category:Black Nationalists]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Rastafari Movement

2011-08-25T19:20:40Z

Gtbob12:

'''Rastafari movement''' members worship former [[Ethiopia | Ethiopian]] emperor [[Haile Selassie I]] as an incarnation of the one true living [[God]], following a syncretism of [[Judeo-Christian]] values and [[Africa]]n practices. Rastafarianism is most common in [[Jamaica]].

The movement started in the early part of the 20th century, heavily influenced by the orator and Black nationalist, Marcus Garvey. Initially, the movement was based upon the belief that all people of [[African]] descent would eventually return to Ethiopia, and that White civilization was "[[Babylon]]" - a metaphor for all evil and wickedness.. Although beliefs vary among members of the movement, a more common focus is the "Africanization of Jamaica". <ref>Appiah & Gates, ''The Dictionary of Global Culture'', Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1997</ref>

Rastafarians meet on a weekly basis for a time of worship and prayers, though they do not have a specific holy day for such services. As [[Lincoln Thompson]] sang: ''"Sunday morning, the heathen running to the temple, during the week they are the devil's disciple."''<ref>Lincoln Thompson, Rootsman Blues, 1983</ref>Part of the service often consists of smoking ganja ([[marijuana]]) a plant with great spiritual significance to them. They support the legalization of marijuana, citing in their defense several Bible verses:

: ''"He causeth the grass for the cattle, and herb for the services of man."'' - ''Psalm 104:14''

: ''"...eat every herb of the land."'' - ''Exodus 10:12''

: ''"Better is a dinner of herb where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith."'' - ''Proverbs 15:17''

Although Rastafarians view ganja as a means to spiritual enlightenment, it had already been a significant part of the culture of the lower working class in [[Jamaica]] for some time before the 1930s. <ref>William F. Lewis, ''Soul Rebels'', Waveland Press 1993</ref>

They also regard hair styles as having religious significance, providing for the popularity of [[dreadlocks]] amongst its adherants, citing the [[Mosaic law]]:

: ''"They shall not make [[baldness]] upon their head."'' - ''Leviticus 21:5''

Rastafarians also eat only ital food and abstain from [[alcohol]], [[milk]], [[coffee]], and preparing food with [[salt]]. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/rastafari/customs/customs_1.shtml] BBC - Religion and Ethics </ref> They also frequently avoid or minimize the consumption of meat.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2011-08-22T13:35:10Z

Gtbob12:

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Andy Schlafly, I joined this site with the hope of improving the (frankly dismal) articles related to English literature, from a conservative, Christian point-of-view. Considering the lack of such material here, I thought this would be appreciated. However, if such awful generalizations will be made about my major after the actions of a VT student with serious problems in his mind, faith, and family, my only conclusion can be that I was wrong, and you have very negative pre-conceived tendencies against English literature. My edits would therefore have gone unappreciated, and I am disappointed. Enjoy the few embarrassingly incomplete literature articles you do have, and enjoy, of course, your open-mindedness. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:56, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Ckirk, your [[Parthian shot]] illustrates my point well. You criticize me personally while also trying to insult this site, and then announce your grand exit after a mere handful of edits. Of course, I did not criticize "English literature"; rather, the criticism is of the major of English Lit. as it is taught today. May I suggest you consider ranting elsewhere now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." - from the Conservapedia article on [[last wordism]]. If you think I left, why direct a comment at me other than to obtain the "last word" here? I only say this because I think you could learn a lot if you adopted conservative principles. You seem to have more in common with radical liberals than with true conservatives. Somehow I think you know that to be true. Now please block me. I've wasted enough of my time here. And don't forget to add the last word. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 23:28, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to rant rather than produce. Please find a different scapegoat. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Do these majors even exist? ==

First, I’d like to concur with others’ opinion that claims that these majors “leave the student with relatively few job opportunities” should be properly documented, or withdrawn. But some of these alleged “worst college majors” don’t seem to even exist. There are several easily located websites with comprehensive lists of available college majors, and none of them contains Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies or Gambling/Gaming. As for the list of courses, yes, most of them seem silly, but they don’t fit the stated category of “fields of study.” [[User:GregF|GregF]] 23:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:Women's studies is a major having many tens of thousands of students nationwide. Gambling/gaming is a big major in Nevada, and perhaps some other states that now also have expansive gambling. I don't doubt that your other three examples exist too, at least at some schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

::I said nothing about Women's Studies, which I am aware is a common course of study at American universities. You "don't doubt" that the others exist but fail to provide any reason for this lack of doubt. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::One reason I don't doubt it is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:: GregF, did you even bothered looking before posting this complain? A quick google search show that the four degrees you mentioned in the message actually exist:
::Comic Book Art: Called "Sequencial Art", offered by [http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm Savannah College of Art and Design].
::Parapsychology: Offered by [http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/ptshortcpd/pgpt/Pages/pgpt.aspx?itemID=151 Coventry University].
::Surfing Studies: Called "Surf Science and Technilogy", offered by [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/course.asp?id=1645 The University of Plymouth]
::Gambling/Gaming, offered by the [http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html University Of Macau]. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, I did look. I didn't find them; you did. Thanks. My point was that they should be documented. Now perhaps they should be listed by their correct names. Sequential Art is much broader than "Comic Book Art" and appears to be a type of Fine Arts degree and no less valid than one in Sculpture or Photography. And the "Gambling" degree is actually in Casino Management, which, given the importance of that industry in Macao, could be quite practical there. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Film==

I noticed that 'Film' has been reinstated, with the comment that the business is shrinking and jobs are scarce. I am one of those not-as-rare-as-you'd-think people - a Christian in the film business in 'Hollywood' (there are a surprising amount of us), and I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects between 10-30% growth in movie business employment between 2008-2018, for example[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm]. The production companies I work for as a freelancer are ''all'' staffed almost entirely by film school grads (dating from 2011 students back to grads from the 60s), are growing and hiring like crazy, and they are desperately searching for more film school grads. There are graduates from all over the world working in this business, and I personally know film school grads from ''at least'' ten different film schools in the US who are busily at work here in Los Angeles - schools like Tisch, SCAD, Arts Centre, UCLA, USC, Vasser, Colorado Film School, etc - there's countless programs nowadays. In a business where experience is everything, film school grads are eminently hirable, and I think the suggestion that it is one of the "Worst College Majors" is utterly incorrect. If you can back up your claim with some figures, I'd be interested, but for now it seems you may be pre-judging these kids, based on the fact that they want to work in what is often a not particularly Christian business. But rest assured, there are plenty of art department, post-production, gaffers, DP's, runner and producers who are people of Faith, and we welcome more into our fold every day. Try not to pre-judge what is a highly employable field. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:The California government gives special benefits to the film industry there to prop it up and keep it going. The industry is generally declining. In other places I don't think most students who major in film have a realistic chance of getting a good job, and the benefits to the industry are likely to be cut. See, e.g., "Michigan spent $137.5 million in incentives to generate $80.6 million in film industry revenue" [http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/02/michigans_film_industry_to_fade_away_alo.html]. If a student knows someone in the industry who can get him or her a job, then that may work for a while. But if not, it looks pretty hopeless. I knew one college film major who struggled to find a summer job opportunity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? ==

The current list is a mixture of two negative qualities: liberalism (e.g. women's studies) and poor job-outlook (video game design). A major like video game design or architecture don't intrinsically embody liberal philosophies, but the job outlook for graduates with these majors is poor these days, while a major like evolutionary biology has liberal connotations but the job-outlook for these graduates is not bod (though not great, but certainly better than a film major, etc.). Some majors, like women's studies, fall into both camps. '''So should there be two lists: one for extremely liberal majors and one for majors that offer poor job prospects?'''

:Conciseness is favored here. If the major is at least partially a waste of time, then it belongs on the (one) list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

::Then how is ranking supposed to work for this list? At present, it's difficult to organize the list when it incorporates both liberal biased majors and non-liberal, useless majors. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 02:11, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

==Video game design should be removed==

I find video game design to be a somewhat confusing entry. The video games industry is now larger than the film industry and a typical graduate with some experience can expect to enter a well paid job with good security. I'm involved in computer science research and I interact regularly with video games companies and the students themselves. Generally companies are interested in recruiting our graduates.

It's by no means a wasted degree, it's a good practical skill for a booming industry.

Furthermore, the source given for this leads nowhere, it's just an arbitrary statement. It means nothing. The claim that it's a bad major is unfounded and irrelevant.[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConserative]]
:Hi, I'm someone who has a degree in Video Game design and can't find a job because I don't live in California or Montrial. The places that hire video game designers are very limited and otherwise, someone will have to start their own business with no promise of a paycheck. That is why it is a poor choice of a diploma unless you are REALLY good at it or live in a prime location for the job. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::Thanks for the reply MHarris. I think that is a common factor across many industries, not just video games. Many of my colleagues have either a background in physics or computer science, which are very highly regarded fields of eduction. However, many of them have specialities and have had to travel to work. I admit though, my University has strong ties with video games companies and we are quite near one the major UK hubs of the video game industry.

==Interior Design==

Is interior design necessarily a bad major or is it just because the housing market is so bad? Do you really want to live in a box?
[[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 09:35, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

President of the United States of America

2011-07-11T00:28:52Z

Gtbob12:

[[Image:Presidential seal 506x508.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The [[United States]] Presidential Seal]]
The '''President of the United States''' is the head of the [[United States of America|U.S.]] [[Executive Branch]]. As the [[head of state]] of the [[United States of America]] the President is one of the most powerful people in the [[world]]. The writers of the [[United States Constitution|constitution]] recognized that they were writing a job description which, in [[England]], was and is filled by the office of the [[Prime Minister]] and position of the [[Monarchy|Monarch]]. At that time, the Monarchy of England did not seem to serve the common man and the Founders wanted to create a [[government]] that did.
==Current President==
The 44th and current President is [[Barack Hussein Obama]]. He took office on January 20, 2009. His predecessor was [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]].

==Election==
The President is selected every four years by the American people, although not through a [[popular vote]] but rather through the [[Electoral College]]. This process makes the Presidency one of the few elected officials in the [[United States of America]] chosen indirectly, and it was intended to do so by the [[Founding Fathers]], who wanted to ensure the relevance of smaller states in the voting process.

==Term Limits==
Prior to [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], Presidents voluntarily limited themselves to two terms as an homage to [[George Washington]]. After Franklin D. Roosevelt served a little over twelve years in office, [[Congress]] passed a [[Constitutional Amendment]] restricting future Presidents to two terms.

However if the Vice President succeeds to the Presidency, with no more than two years left in the prior President's term, he is allowed to run for two terms, raising the potential time in office to ten years.

The first President to whom term limits applied was [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

==See Also==
[[Vice President of the United States of America]]

==Presidents list==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!President
!Years
!State
!Party
!Vice President(s)
|-
|1. [[George Washington]]
|1789-1797
|[[Virginia]]
|none
|Adams
|-
|2. [[John Adams]]
|1797-1801
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Federalist
|Jefferson
|-
|3. [[Thomas Jefferson]]
|1801-1809
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Burr, Clinton
|-
|4. [[James Madison]]
|1809-1817
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Clinton, Gerry
|-
|5. [[James Monroe]]
|1817-1825
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Tompkins
|-
|6. [[John Quincy Adams]]
|1825-1829
|[[Massachusetts]]
|National Republican
|Calhoun
|-
|7. [[Andrew Jackson]]
|1829-1837
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Calhoun, Van Buren
|-
|8. [[Martin van Buren]]
|1837-1841
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|9. [[William Henry Harrison]]
|1841
|none
|Whig
|Tyler
|-
|10. [[John Tyler]]
|1841-1845
|[[Virginia]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|11. [[James Knox Polk]]
|1845-1849
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Dallas
|-
|12. [[Zachary Taylor]]
|1849-1850
|none
|Whig
|Filmore
|-
|13. [[Millard Filmore]]
|1850-1853
|[[New York]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|14. [[Franklin Pierce]]
|1853-1857
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Democratic
|King
|-
|15. [[James Buchanan]]
|1857-1861
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Democratic
|Breckenridge
|-
|16. [[Abraham Lincoln]]
|1861-1865
|[[Illinois]]
|Republican
|Hamlin, Grant
|-
|17. [[Andrew Johnson]]
|1865-1869
|[[Tennessee]]
|none
|none
|-
|18. [[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|1869-1877
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Colfax, Wilson
|-
|19. [[Rutherford Hayes]]
|1877-1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Wheeler
|-
|20. [[James Garfield]]
|1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Arthur
|-
|21. [[Chester Arthur]]
|188-1885
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|none
|-
|22. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1885-1889
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Hendricks
|-
|23. [[Benjamin Harrison]]
|1889-1893
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Morton
|-
|24. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1893-1897
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Stevenson
|-
|25. [[William McKinley]]
|1897-1901
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Roosevelt
|-
|26. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|1901-1909
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|Fairbanks
|-
|27. [[William Taft]]
|1909-1913
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Sherman
|-
|28. [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|1913-1921
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic
|Marshall
|-
|29. [[Warren G. Harding]]
|1921-1923
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Coolidge
|-
|30. [[Calvin Coolidge]]
|1923-1929
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Republican
|Dawes
|-
|31. [[Herbert Hoover]]
|1929-1933
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Curtis
|-
|32. [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]
|1933-1945
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Garner, [[Henry A. Wallace|Wallace]], Truman
|-
|33. [[Harry S. Truman]]
|1945-1953
|Missouri
|Democratic
|Barkley
|-
|34. [[Dwight David Eisenhower]]
|1953-1961
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Republican
|Nixon
|-
|35. [[John Fitzgerald Kennedy]]
|1961-1963
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|36. [[Lyndon Baines Johnson]]
|1963-1969
|[[Texas]]
|Democratic
|Humphrey
|-
|37. [[Richard Milhouse Nixon]]
|1969-1974
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Agnew, Ford
|-
|38. [[Gerald Ford]]
|1974-1977
|[[Nebraska]]
|Republican
|Rockefeller
|-
|39. [[Jimmy Carter]]
|1977-1981
|[[Georgia]]
|Democratic
|Mondale
|-
|40. [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]
|1981-1989
|[[California]]
|Republican
|(H.W.) Bush
|-
|41. [[George Herbert Walker Bush]]
|1989-1993
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Quayle
|-
|42. [[Bill Clinton]]
|1993-2001
|[[Arkansas]]
|Democratic
|Gore
|-
|43. [[George Walker Bush]]
|2001-2009
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Cheney
|-
|44. [[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|''2009 - ''
|[[Illinois]]
|Democratic
|Biden
|}

{{USPresidents}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Deaths directly attributed to the liberal media

2011-06-29T18:42:27Z

Gtbob12: Created page with "The WWF is liberal media? I'd actually be willing to bet money that the majority of professional wrestling fans vote Republican..."

The WWF is liberal media? I'd actually be willing to bet money that the majority of professional wrestling fans vote Republican...

Gambling

2010-12-13T15:34:51Z

Gtbob12:

'''Gambling''' consists of betting on games of chance or uncertain outcomes (like the winner of a sports match or an election). Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Most gambling is informal among friends, as in weekly poker games or in office pools focused on a sports championship.

However the gaming industry is a major tourist-oriented business in Nevada. In recent decades casino gambling has been legalized in many states, in come cases in narrowly specified locales (such as riverboats) or on Indian reservations (which are less subject to state law.)
==Lottery==
[[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device. Lotteries are a major revenue source for governments. This is controversial, as while the government makes money through the lottery for social services, it is primarily played by the poor and working class, and thus seen as a "tax on the poor". Furthermore, the odds of winning money in the lottery are substantially less than winning at a casino. Additionally, the lottery, both "pick em" games and scratch tickets, are purely games of chance, whereas casinos have generally have several skill games.
==Addiction==
A certain fraction of the population is addicted to gambling and tend to drain family resources on the habit. Stories are common of addicts losing all their money in a single gambling spree. Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].
==Odds==
In games played against the "house" (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the "house" takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%.

==Legality of Gambling==

Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again. Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.

In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that "the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities."<ref>http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/</ref>

In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.
==Internet gambling==
On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA). The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?". Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml</ref>. Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.

On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill. Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act. The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.

On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm</ref> of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web<ref>http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html</ref>. According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.

== Gambling Loss Limit ==

The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons. The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day. This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering.

Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler. Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org</ref>. This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html</ref> In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html</ref>

The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money. “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises. An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html</ref> A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:gambling]]

Previous Breaking News/ACLU

2010-10-31T23:50:34Z

Gtbob12:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[ACLU]]'''. 
''Last date of Archived news is July 31, 2008. Contains archives from January 2007 to July 2008.''

*The [[ACLU]] wants sex offenders near your [[children]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclu_wants_sex_offenders_near_your_children/]
*The [[ACLU]] has just announced a $335 million fund-raising [[campaign]] intended to strengthen its operations in "heartland" states. In most cases, it will [[public]]ly attack in [[court]] and out, positions on [[issue]]s such as "[[Illegal immigration|immigrants' rights]], [[Homosexual rights advocacy|gay rights]], [[police]] brutality and opposition to the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]]." [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_to_raise_335_million_to_attack_the_us_heartland/]
*[[ACLU]] and the [[Federal]] [[Government]] Support [[Invasion]] of [[Illegal aliens]] in [[Washington]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_supports_invasion_of_washington/]
*'''The [[ACLU]] v. Good [[Judge]]s''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26690] 
:[[Phyllis Schlafly|Phyllis Schlafly’s]] [[Eagle Forum]] believes appointing the right [[federal]] and local judges is more important than electing members of [[Congress]] or the [[President of the United States of America|President]]. Without solid, constitutionalist judges in place, the ACLU will continue winning [[case]]s that encourage the breakdown of traditional [[values]] and [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] [[right]]s.
*The [[ACLU]] is suing to deprive [[public schools]] the ability to improve achievement through use of some single-sex classes. Separating boys and girls is known to improve achievement in some circumstances, and is being used by 392 [[public schools]]. This lawsuit is in [[Breckinridge County, Kentucky]].[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/24/aclu-suing-middle-school-for-single-sex-classes/?page=2]
:Is the ACLU motivated by the $7.4 million awarded in fees to groups that forced [[Michigan]] schools to hold boys and girls sports competitions in the same season? [http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080511/SPORTS09/805110634/1057/SPORTS09]
*[[ACLU]] [[Extremist Attitude|Attitudes]] Infest the [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]] Foundation [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attitudes_infest_the_ford_foundation/]
*[[Cellular telephone|Cell phone]] users can now choose a [[CREDO Mobile|company]] that will donate some of its profits to [[liberal]] causes like the [[ACLU]], [[Greenpeace]], [[Planned Parenthood]], [[Media Matters for America]], [[Rock the Vote]], [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], [[Human Rights Watch]], and GLAAD. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8219.html] [http://www.credomobile.com/causes-list.html]
*A [[Massachusetts]] jury completely acquits a pro-family leader for an alleged assault of an [[ACLU]] activist who was a counter-demonstrator at a pro-family rally.[http://www.telegram.com/article/20071022/ALERT01/71022003] Are the [[homosexual]] activists losing their grip on [[Massachusetts]]?
*[[ACLU]] Should Get a Clue ''[[Human Events]]'' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22891] "Is there any organization so consistently anti-[[United States of America|American]], uncivil, anti-[[liberty]] and disunifying?"
*[[Labor union|Unions]] Frantic: Will [[School choice|School Choice]] [[Referendum]] Prevail in [[Utah]]? [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22727 ''Human Events''] The National [[Education]] [[Association]] (NEA), [[Utah]] [[Parents|Parent]] [[Teacher]] [[Association]] (PTA), the [[ACLU]] and the local [[NAACP]] chapter are working together to attack [[school choice]].
*''Here's a switch'' - [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Mormon]] student, [[United States Department of Justice|Justice]], [[ACLU]] Join Up. The Justice Department is joining the ACLU in backing a student who lost his state-funded merit-based scholarship because he left [[college]] to serve a two-year church mission. [http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=20266 ''LDSLiving'']
*[[Judge]] sides with AFL-CIO, [[ACLU]] in putting freeze on [[Department of Homeland Security]] Plan to Warn [[Employer]]s About Hiring [[Illegal Immigration|Illegals]]. [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295478,00.html] and [[Washington Post]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101900.html?wpisrc=newsletter]
*The [[ACLU]] demands $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill." [http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]
*But things can go wrong for the ACLU, like when one of their own, who happened to be the head of the Virginia chapter, gets caught and arrested, tried and convicted of downloading child pornography...from his 10 year-old son's bedroom computer! [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html]
*O'Reilly: [[Ward Churchill|Ward Churchill's]] demise. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says "the [[ACLU]] is exposed as a [[fraud]]" and its condemnation of former [[Harvard University|Harvard]] President Lawrence Summers is a [[double standard]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?072507/072507_views_oreilly&Talking%20Points%3A%207/25&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&The%20demise%20of%20Ward%20Churchill%85&Bill%20O%27Reilly&-1&Talking%20Points%3A%207/25&Video%20Launch%20Page&Opinion Video]
*[[United States of America|US]] Cities [[Lawsuit|Suing]] Street Gangs in Latest Tactic to Fight [[Drugs#Illegal_drugs|Drugs]], [[Crime]]. The [[ACLU]] objects. ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'' [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291311,00.html]
*A [[Objectivism|Perception]] Issue? Revolving door between the [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] and [[National Public Radio]]. [[NewsBusters]]:[http://newsbusters.org/node/14128]

[[Category:Previous Breaking News]]

----

#[[ACLU]] Wants the [[United States of America|US]] to Lose the [[War on Terrorism]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_wants_the_us_to_lose_the_war_on_terrorism/] Jpatt
#A Guide to the [[Politics|Political]] [[Leftist|Left]]: [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp ''DiscoverTheNetwork.org''] Check out its articles on the [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145 ACLU] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Doesn't Want to Pay [[Taxation|Taxes]]; Expects [[Church|Churches]] to Pay Them [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_doesnt_want_to_pay_taxes_expects_churches_to_pay_them/] Jpatt
#A [[judge]] has upheld the issuance of [[Indiana]] license plates bearing the message "[[In God We Trust]]," dismissing a [[Constitution|constitutional]] [[challenge]] by the [[ACLU]] of Indiana [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Is AWOL On [[Free Speech Clause|Free Speech]] [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=449] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Aiding [[United States of America|America's]] Enemies, Again [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_aiding_americas_enemies_again/] Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] assembles a [[Terrorism|terrorist]] [[legal]] defense force that includes former [[Attorney General]] [[Janet Reno]] and former [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] Director William Webster [http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/the-aclu-assembles-a-terrorist-legal-defense-force-of-extraordinary-magnitude/] Jpatt
#''America, 1. ACLU, 0'' - [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] Rejects [[ACLU]] Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program. Warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment. [http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/19/america-1-aclu-0/][http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html]
#The [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] lost a lawsuit challenging [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Associated Press article at [[Fox News]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html] Jpatt
#Court Ends [[Bible]] Distribution in School [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902166.html] Guess who sued for that ruling? The [[ACLU]], of course. Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] strikes again: it just persuaded the [[Ninth Circuit]] to forbid [[Congress]] from transferring a cross to private owners who would preserve it in the Mojave Desert, in ''[[Buono v. Kempthorne]]'' [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement] Is there no end to the hostility to [[Christianity]]? Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] [[deceit]] in its "'talking points' in case Uncle Harry asks why the [[ACLU]] hates [[Christmas]] so much: Tell him 'we work year-round to ensure that everyone in [[America]] has the freedom to practice their own religion (or no religion) and to keep the government out of religion.'" [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686800,00.html] In fact, the [[ACLU]] ''destroys'' "the freedom to" pray in the classroom, and its "keep the [[government]] out of religion" means [[atheism]] at the expense of overwhelmingly religious taxpayers. Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] strikes again! This time it has enlisted the Liberal Courts to have banned the ''private'' distribution of [[Bible]]s in [[public school]]. The [[federal]] Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] issued this ruling for the [[ACLU]]. ''[[Doe v. S. Iron R-1 Sch. Dist.]]'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19818 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007). Jpatt
#The [[Seventh Circuit]] just ruled against the [[ACLU]] by overturning "a lower court's decision that sectarian prayers on the floor of the ([[Indiana]]) House violated the constitutional [[separation of church and state]]."[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/LOCAL19/310310007] Jpatt

Previous Breaking News/ACLU

2010-10-31T23:40:19Z

Gtbob12:

This page contains the items that were once on the "Breaking News" section of the Main Page. The articles are mainly about the '''[[ACLU]]'''. 
''Last date of Archived news is July 31, 2008. Contains archives from January 2007 to July 2008.''

*The [[ACLU]] wants sex offenders near your [[children]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclu_wants_sex_offenders_near_your_children/]
*The [[ACLU]] has just announced a $335 million fund-raising [[campaign]] intended to strengthen its operations in "heartland" states. In most cases, it will [[public]]ly attack in [[court]] and out, positions on [[issue]]s such as "[[Illegal immigration|immigrants' rights]], [[Homosexual rights advocacy|gay rights]], [[police]] brutality and opposition to the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]]." [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_to_raise_335_million_to_attack_the_us_heartland/]
*[[ACLU]] and the [[Federal]] [[Government]] Support [[Invasion]] of [[Illegal aliens]] in [[Washington]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_supports_invasion_of_washington/]
*'''The [[ACLU]] v. Good [[Judge]]s''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26690] 
:[[Phyllis Schlafly|Phyllis Schlafly’s]] [[Eagle Forum]] believes appointing the right [[federal]] and local judges is more important than electing members of [[Congress]] or the [[President of the United States of America|President]]. Without solid, constitutionalist judges in place, the ACLU will continue winning [[case]]s that encourage the breakdown of traditional [[values]] and [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] [[right]]s.
*The [[ACLU]] is suing to deprive [[public schools]] the ability to improve achievement through use of some single-sex classes. Separating boys and girls is known to improve achievement in some circumstances, and is being used by 392 [[public schools]]. This lawsuit is in [[Breckinridge County, Kentucky]].[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/24/aclu-suing-middle-school-for-single-sex-classes/?page=2]
:Is the ACLU motivated by the $7.4 million awarded in fees to groups that forced [[Michigan]] schools to hold boys and girls sports competitions in the same season? [http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080511/SPORTS09/805110634/1057/SPORTS09]
*[[ACLU]] [[Extremist Attitude|Attitudes]] Infest the [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]] Foundation [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_attitudes_infest_the_ford_foundation/]
*[[Cellular telephone|Cell phone]] users can now choose a [[CREDO Mobile|company]] that will donate some of its profits to [[liberal]] causes like the [[ACLU]], [[Greenpeace]], [[Planned Parenthood]], [[Media Matters for America]], [[Rock the Vote]], [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], [[Human Rights Watch]], and GLAAD. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8219.html] [http://www.credomobile.com/causes-list.html]
*A [[Massachusetts]] jury completely acquits a pro-family leader for an alleged assault of an [[ACLU]] activist who was a counter-demonstrator at a pro-family rally.[http://www.telegram.com/article/20071022/ALERT01/71022003] Are the [[homosexual]] activists losing their grip on [[Massachusetts]]?
*[[ACLU]] Should Get a Clue ''[[Human Events]]'' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22891] "Is there any organization so consistently anti-[[United States of America|American]], uncivil, anti-[[liberty]] and disunifying?"
*[[Labor union|Unions]] Frantic: Will [[School choice|School Choice]] [[Referendum]] Prevail in [[Utah]]? [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22727 ''Human Events''] The National [[Education]] [[Association]] (NEA), [[Utah]] [[Parents|Parent]] [[Teacher]] [[Association]] (PTA), the [[ACLU]] and the local [[NAACP]] chapter are working together to attack [[school choice]].
*''Here's a switch'' - [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Mormon]] student, [[United States Department of Justice|Justice]], [[ACLU]] Join Up. The Justice Department is joining the ACLU in backing a student who lost his state-funded merit-based scholarship because he left [[college]] to serve a two-year church mission. [http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=20266 ''LDSLiving'']
*[[Judge]] sides with AFL-CIO, [[ACLU]] in putting freeze on [[Department of Homeland Security]] Plan to Warn [[Employer]]s About Hiring [[Illegal Immigration|Illegals]]. [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295478,00.html] and [[Washington Post]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101900.html?wpisrc=newsletter]
*The [[ACLU]] demands $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill." [http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]
*But things can go wrong for the ACLU, like when one of their own, who happened to be the head of the Virginia chapter, gets caught and arrested, tried and convicted of downloading child pornography...from his 10 year-old son's bedroom computer! [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090701673.html]
*O'Reilly: [[Ward Churchill|Ward Churchill's]] demise. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says "the [[ACLU]] is exposed as a [[fraud]]" and its condemnation of former [[Harvard University|Harvard]] President Lawrence Summers is a [[double standard]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?072507/072507_views_oreilly&Talking%20Points%3A%207/25&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&The%20demise%20of%20Ward%20Churchill%85&Bill%20O%27Reilly&-1&Talking%20Points%3A%207/25&Video%20Launch%20Page&Opinion Video]
*[[United States of America|US]] Cities [[Lawsuit|Suing]] Street Gangs in Latest Tactic to Fight [[Drugs#Illegal_drugs|Drugs]], [[Crime]]. The [[ACLU]] objects. ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'' [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291311,00.html]
*A [[Objectivism|Perception]] Issue? Revolving door between the [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] and [[National Public Radio]]. [[NewsBusters]]:[http://newsbusters.org/node/14128]

[[Category:Previous Breaking News]]

----

#[[ACLU]] Wants the [[United States of America|US]] to Lose the [[War on Terrorism]] [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_wants_the_us_to_lose_the_war_on_terrorism/] Jpatt
#A Guide to the [[Politics|Political]] [[Leftist|Left]]: [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp ''DiscoverTheNetwork.org''] Check out its articles on the [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145 ACLU] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Doesn't Want to Pay [[Taxation|Taxes]]; Expects [[Church|Churches]] to Pay Them [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_doesnt_want_to_pay_taxes_expects_churches_to_pay_them/] Jpatt
#A [[judge]] has upheld the issuance of [[Indiana]] license plates bearing the message "[[In God We Trust]]," dismissing a [[Constitution|constitutional]] [[challenge]] by the [[ACLU]] of Indiana [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Is AWOL On [[Free Speech Clause|Free Speech]] [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=449] Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] Aiding [[United States of America|America's]] Enemies, Again [http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_aiding_americas_enemies_again/] Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] assembles a [[Terrorism|terrorist]] [[legal]] defense force that includes former [[Attorney General]] [[Janet Reno]] and former [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] Director William Webster [http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/the-aclu-assembles-a-terrorist-legal-defense-force-of-extraordinary-magnitude/] Jpatt
#''America, 1. ACLU, 0'' - [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] Rejects [[ACLU]] Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program. Take that Fourth Amendment! [http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/19/america-1-aclu-0/][http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html]
#The [[ACLU|American Civil Liberties Union]] lost a lawsuit challenging [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush's]] domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Associated Press article at [[Fox News]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html] Jpatt
#Court Ends [[Bible]] Distribution in School [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902166.html] Guess who sued for that ruling? The [[ACLU]], of course. Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] strikes again: it just persuaded the [[Ninth Circuit]] to forbid [[Congress]] from transferring a cross to private owners who would preserve it in the Mojave Desert, in ''[[Buono v. Kempthorne]]'' [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement] Is there no end to the hostility to [[Christianity]]? Jpatt
#[[ACLU]] [[deceit]] in its "'talking points' in case Uncle Harry asks why the [[ACLU]] hates [[Christmas]] so much: Tell him 'we work year-round to ensure that everyone in [[America]] has the freedom to practice their own religion (or no religion) and to keep the government out of religion.'" [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686800,00.html] In fact, the [[ACLU]] ''destroys'' "the freedom to" pray in the classroom, and its "keep the [[government]] out of religion" means [[atheism]] at the expense of overwhelmingly religious taxpayers. Jpatt
#The [[ACLU]] strikes again! This time it has enlisted the Liberal Courts to have banned the ''private'' distribution of [[Bible]]s in [[public school]]. The [[federal]] Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] issued this ruling for the [[ACLU]]. ''[[Doe v. S. Iron R-1 Sch. Dist.]]'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19818 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007). Jpatt
#The [[Seventh Circuit]] just ruled against the [[ACLU]] by overturning "a lower court's decision that sectarian prayers on the floor of the ([[Indiana]]) House violated the constitutional [[separation of church and state]]."[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/LOCAL19/310310007] Jpatt

Pornography

2010-09-24T23:58:00Z

Gtbob12: /* Legal aspects */

{{etymology|[[Greek]] πορνή (''porné'')) a prostitute and γράΦω (''grapho'') I write}}[[Image:Pornography.jpg|200px|right]]
'''Pornography''' is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intent of stimulation.
It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. ({{Bible ref|book=Jude|chap=1|verses=6-7}}) It destroys the mind as [[gambling]] does and, even worse, '''pornography''' leads to terrible crimes against women and children.<ref>http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm</ref> The Greek word πορνεία (''porneía'') appears several times in the [[New Testament]] as a sin that, unless repented of, will prevent one from entering heaven; however, such a word in Ancient Greek mostly referred to [[sexual immorality|illicit sexual relationships]] (such as adultery and incest), prostitution, and also, in a broader sense, idolatry.

* When Christ said "any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," He made it clear that chastity -- and unchastity -- don't begin with what we do, but rather in what we think. And deliberately seeking such stimulation outside a committed marriage, even via the imagination, constitutes a sin against [[chastity]].<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0051.html Banishing Unchaste Thoughts]</ref>

Pornographic images have been proliferating at a remarkable rate. What was a $5 million-a-year enterprise merely 25 years ago has boomed to a $7 billion to $10 billion-a-year industry today... the fastest growing sectors of the industry are pornographic DVDs, cable television, and phone sex. Pornography is no longer confined to the seedier sections of town. With the advent of the Internet, it has become readily available to all, including children, and in the privacy of our own homes.<ref>[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education?]</ref>

==Human psychology==
Dr. [[Jerry Bergman (scientist)|Jerry Bergman]] (Ph.D.) wrote:

:Pornography distorts the natural development of personality. If the early stimulus is pornographic photographs, the [[adolescent]] can be [[conditioning|conditioned]] to become aroused through photographs. Once this pairing is rewarded a number of times, it is likely to become permanent. The result to the individual is that it becomes difficult for the person to seek out relations with appropriate persons.<ref> Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., The Influence of Pornography on Sexual Development: Three Case Histories, IX ''Family Therapy'' 3, 1982, pg. 265. </ref>

==Illusion and addiction==

Pornography provides the illusion of intimacy,<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html (Christian Answers)] </ref> but this is a [[satan]]ic trap (see [[sexual addiction]]).

*Pornography consumption is not something that can easily be stopped. Once the appetite for it has developed, it actually increases. In his 1988 study ''Pornography Effects: Empirical and Clinical Evidence'', [[Victor Cline]], then with the [[University of Utah]]'s Department of Psychology noted that studies show pornography is progressive and addictive for many. It often leads to the user acting out his fantasy.
*The Internet is the "crack cocaine" of sexual addiction.<ref>[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/pornfacts.asp]</ref>

"People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them,"<ref>At the crux of this issue is whether written pornography might have a causal effect in eroticizing criminal activities. One case that dealt with this issue indirectly is American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, ... the court conceded that it saw some evidence of a causal relationship between pornography and anti-social behaviors.... People often act in accordance with the images and patterns they find around them. . . . Depictions of subordination tend to perpetuate subordination." 771 F.2d at 328-29.</ref> so looking at pornography is a dangerous practice; although being around a loving Christian family for most of the day, and instead acting in accordance with those images and patterns seems to negate this.

Porn says that happiness is found by having the same experience over and over again with lots of different women; true ''eros'' says that happiness is found by having different experiences over and over again with the same person.<ref>[http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/02/schwyzer-on-porn-pursuit-of-novelty-is-enemy-of-relationship.aspx]</ref>

==Departure from the norm==
Viewing or reading pornography day in and day out has a negative effect. It desensitizes a person, makes him more withdrawn, and makes him view others (of the opposite sex) like objects rather than the people they are.
Although some people have argued that "erotica" is okay, in the history of erotic literature it is rare to find any depiction of normal marital relations.

Cary Tennis wrote:
:And naturally whether you approve of porn in theory or not, its effect will be to displace you. Like crack, it tends to take over, to push out other hungers that tend to nurture the human community by making us dependent on one another. Since we are dependent on each other we must be civil and loving. If we are not dependent on each other then we needn't be civil and loving. We needn't have community and family.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2007/04/11/porn/ (Salon magazine)]</ref>

There is debate whether it is truly moral to be 'civil and loving' purely because it is necessary, as Cary Tennis seems to say here. Other Christians argue that to be 'civil and loving' purely because we are dependent on others is actually immoral and manipulative. These Christians argue that to be self-contained, independent and yet still warm and loving is a greater virtue.

Debbie Nathan wrote:
:Porn is everywhere today, everyone is looking, and the media responds with little more than gloom-and-doom talk about evils like Internet sex addiction, or rah-rah promotion of Brazilian waxing and Jenna Jameson’s fame and fortune. Meanwhile, few know the real history of this explosive media, or the truth about its business practices, working conditions, politics and actual effects on people. [http://debbienathan.com/buy-the-books/ Pornography: A Groundwork Guide.]

==Legal aspects==
Due to a series of [[liberal]] decisions beginning with the [[Warren Court]], and the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, pornography is aggressively sold and distributed in the United States without meaningful law enforcement. It is a $7-10 billion industry that affects and harms 40 million Americans. Pornography destroys relationships and exploits young people.<ref>''National Catholic Register'' p. 8 (Apr. 22, 2007).</ref><ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref> The [[ACLU]] has also opposed any limits on the availability of pornographic content, as well as the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have placed restrictions on how accessible pornography would be to minors on the internet.

== Deadly industry ==
Similar to [[Hollywood Values]], the pornographic industry is rife with destructive [[liberal]] values that prove dangerous and even deadly. A great number of pornographic movie "stars" have died untimely deaths due to drug use, alcoholism and [[sexually transmitted disease]]. Below is a list of such cases. Note that most names below are stage names, that such actors adopt out of shame and acknowledgment of their depraved choices. In that same vein, suicide is very common among pornographic "actors."<ref>http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/</ref>

*Brad Chase, suicide (hanging)
*John Holmes, 43, died of [[AIDS]]
*Maria Christina, 41, drug overdose
*Vanessa Freeman, 29, murdered
*Elisa Bridges, 28, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.
*Chance Ryder, 26, drug overdose
*Roberta Pedon, 43, cirrhosis of the liver due to alcoholism
*Pierce Daniels, 32, AIDS
*Lisa Melendez, 40, AIDS
*Teri Diver, 38, drug overdose
*Wendy O. Williams, 24, suicide (self-inflicted gunshot)
*Nancee Kelly, 44, suicide (self-inflicted gunshot)
*Jon Vincent, 36, suicide (drug overdose)
*Caleb Carter, 31, suicide after suffering from manic depression, alcoholism
*Kyle Hazzard, 33, AIDS
*Charli Waters, 20, murdered
*Andy Mantegna, 34, suicide (hanging)

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anthony Comstock]]
*[[ACLU#Pornography|ACLU]]
*[[Social effects of pornography]]

==External links==
*[http://unitedfamilies.org/default.asp?contentID=34 Guide to Family Issues: The Harms of Pornography] : United Families Intl
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f016.html How can I tell if I'm getting addicted to sex or pornography?] - ChristianAnswers.Net
*[http://www.soundvision.com/Info/life/porn/getrid.asp Pornography & Islam] : A 12-step guide To Fight Pornography Addiction
*[http://nopornnorthampton.org/ NoPornHampton] - an anti-pornography organization with an extensive, blog-style website
*[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759 Censorship or Education? Feminist Views on Pornography]
*[http://www.ldsmag.com//LDSMariageNetwork/090306woman.html What's A Woman To Do? How Pornography Affects Women and What They Can Do], Geoff Steurer, ''Meridian Magazine''
*[http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/news/HowAdultPornographyHarmsChildren.pdf How Adult Pornography Contributes To Sexual Exploitation of Children], by Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media (September 2009)

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Pornography]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

War on Drugs

2010-06-28T14:04:29Z

Gtbob12:

The '''War on Drugs''' refers to a campaign created by the [[United States]] government targeted to reduce illegal drug use and trade. The term was first used by U.S. [[President]] [[Richard Nixon]] in 1971.

== Reasoning ==
The expected outcome of the '''War on Drugs''' is to reduce and eventually eradicate all individual and social problems associated with drug abuse. The basic principle that the war on drugs is founded on is that by imposing penalties for the production, distribution and use of certain chemicals, the overall use of these chemicals as drugs by the public will reduce. A necessary assumption is that by reducing the number of people who use drugs, a reduction in drug abuse and its associated problems will also occur.

== Arguments For and Against ==
The main argument for the war on drugs is that because of the dangerous effects these substances have shown to produce in some people, there must be [[government]] control mechanisms to stop people from subjecting themselves or others to the same effects. Although this is a historically recent point of view with regard to the substances controlled in the war on drugs, the principle has been a recurring theme throughout the world at various times. Coffee and tobacco have both been seen as dangerous substances and banned by various governing bodies historically. This principle is the basis for many laws seen today, such as control of the sale and ownership of certain weapons. However few other laws, if any, exist to punish people for possessing physical means to potentially cause themselves physical or emotional harm.

Arguments against the war on drugs usually involve proponents of the concept of freedom of choice. Many people believe it is their own right, not the state's, to choose what substances they put into their body, even when they acknowledge that those substances will do them harm.

Others argue that the laws against drugs are hypocritical since many other dangerous drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco as well as some prescription and over the counter medications are tolerated, especially legal prescription opiates, such as oxycodone and morphine, which are highly addictive and can lead to overdose. Some even argue that the legality of the sale of unhealthy foods and drinks goes against the principle behind the war on drugs, since deaths as a result from unhealthy diet dwarf deaths occurring from illegal drug use.

Many express that the dangers drugs hold towards society are exaggerated by the government and media, who only choose results from scientific studies which support the point of view that the illegal drugs are as dangerous as they say they are. On the other hand, many proponents of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs ignore scientific evidence that goes against their point of view.

Few people hold a neutral and unbiased viewpoint on drugs, and as such, it is difficult to hold a rational and logical debate on the subject.

== Crime ==
Before criminal penalties were applied to the production, sale and use of drugs, drug related crimes as we know them today did not exist. This is not to say that other problems, such as addiction did not occur. Before most drugs become illegal they are usually manufactured by professional companies under state law, and as such anything produced for human consumption must adhere to strict standards. Companies competing with each other in the drug market must do so in lawful ways. An unfortunate consequence of the war on drugs is that cartels and gangs who now illegally distribute drugs do not follow the same standards of production and practice. This results in gang related violence, as different gangs seek to control the trade for their own gain. Also sale to underage children and addicts since distributors feel no legal or moral obligation to do otherwise (as opposed to the sale of alcohol for instance).

The war on drugs extends the definition of what is a crime, and as a result actually creates more 'crime' initially, since previously legal activities become illegal. The idea is that people participating in the drug related activities are now defined as criminals, and become marginalized with respect to the legal system and the public who support it. In turn, this fraction of the population must submit to the law and refuse drug related activities in order to be accepted as a law abiding member of society.

== Success or Failure? ==
There are different views on what constitutes success with respect to the war on drugs. Although the amount of drugs seized by government organizations increases each year, the number of people still using drugs has not followed any particular pattern since the initiation of the war. Despite this, most governments have a positive outlook for their efforts to curb drug use and its associated problems.

[[Category:Crime]]

Talk:ACLU

2009-09-28T17:31:09Z

Gtbob12:

== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==

The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."

I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LGBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:You do realize that Conservapedia is officially a Christian & Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, and therefore does not strive, like Wikipedia for neutrality? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::Because I believe there is a difference between conservatism and anti-constitutional thinking. One of the core values of the conservatism is the infallibility of the constitution. I do edit Wikipedia, by the way. Do you have an opinion on the subject, user ₮K? {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:::I noted that CP does not strive for neutrality, as you suggested it do. I have no idea where the Constitution and WP references connect. Happy editing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== 'Conspicuously Absent' section ==

I previously commented on this section of the article and I think TK did amend it, but both must have been lost with the recent crash. This section is poorly construction and too opinionated, and needs a lot of work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Privacy Rights Section ==
Is there any chance an explanation could be given for the removal of the Privacy Rights section? TK posted a threat on my talk page not to post 'liberal deceit' or I wouldn't be taken seriously. I was under the impression that the ACLU did do the three things indicated in the offending section. If there is any information that would indicate they did not support 'Joe the Plumber' with an open letter, file a friend of the court brief in support of Limbaugh, or join a broad coalition of civil rights groups to oppose the national ID card, please let me know or post it in the article. I thought the references provided were of the required quality, or is Fox News a source of 'liberal deceit'? --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:Look, without a longer track record your contributions could very well be [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps these additions are along the lines of Satan quoting Psalm 91:11-12 when he/she (...could Satan be female?) made an attempt to tempt Christ. Or perhaps these additions are okay. In either case, it's too difficult to tell. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)

::Well said, RickD.

::JohnnyBB, you are well on your way to proving my point. I don't make threats, what I posted on your talk page, take it as a promise. Either discuss your plans for changes to articles on the talk pages, or we can just not waste your time, or anyone else's here as well, and block you immediately. This isn't whatever liberal wiki you might be used to. Time wasters, especially those trying to prove the unprovable, namely that the ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization, with a demonstrable track record of being that, will be a one-way ticket to oblivion here. But please, don't take my word for it! Go post on the [[user talk:aschlafly|Owner's page]], and tell him about my "threats", and your thoughts about how the ACLU is interested in protecting everyone's privacy, including conservatives. You might also want to be prepared to answer some questions from him about the tens of thousands of babies the ACLU has helped kill. Just saying..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::RickD: Comparing my edits to Satan? Are you serious or is this a form of subtle humor?

:::TK: I read the Commandments, guidelines, and etiquette links you thoughtfully provided. Thank-you very much. Nowhere did I see a prohibition against editing an article without starting a discussion on the talk page. Was I mistaken? If so, could you point me in the right direction please? There is however a rule that suggests, ''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'' I wonder who ignored this concept? By the way, in America, ''favour'' is spelled without the ''u''. The ''u'' is used in Britain. Thank the first Roosevelt administration for the change.

:::You claimed I was trying to prove the ''unprovable'' (sic). Yet I am the one that posted references to my edit that even included a conservative source. Are you actually trying to deny that the ACLU has supported the privacy rights of at least some Americans even when they don't believe in such a concept themselves? Limbaugh denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy, yet that didn't stop him from accepting the ACLU's brief nor did he stop his attorney from making the same claims in his defense against the doctor shopping charges.

:::If the owner of this page wants to start a dialog with me about the alleged distain for privacy rights you are alleging about the ACLU, I would be glad to do so. I will not contact him on his personal page because the etiquette page states any discussion concerning the content of an article should take place on the article's talk page and not an editor's page. I don't want to give you any additional reasons to make any more ''promises'' in reference to the factual and referenced edits I have made.

:::I suppose we could discuss the issue of the ACLU's alleged baby killing, but I prefer that we stick to the issue at hand, you know, the idea that the ACLU may actually support privacy rights of certain Americans. Would this be an issue you care to discuss? Can we have a rational discussion on the stated topic without wandering over to other areas like baby killing? Would you be willing to provide primary or secondary sources to your claims instead of just saying things like the ''ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization''? If your assertion is the unmitigated and unquestionable fact that you seem to insist it is, then you should have no problem providing numerous references.

:::Once again, thank-you for your responses concerning my alleged ''liberal deceit''. I'm kind of blown away that editing this encyclopedia in a way that abides by the Commandments, guidelines and rules of etiquette is somehow ''liberal deceit''. Do I have your permission to follow the example set by yourself when editing articles? If so would you kindly tell me so? That way I won't have to worry about things like ''liberal deceit'' accusations. --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 20:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

*Gods speed to you, JohnnyB. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:15, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::What TK is saying is that you are inserting liberalism into pages. While a liberal is not prevented from editing here, this is not a liberal wiki. TK wants the changes on the talk page first because you want to add liberalism into articles and these need reviewed first. It is not written that way in the commandments. Your work has been reverted several times, it is a reasonable request (temporary) until you have a track record of contributions. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:28, 19 February 2009 (EST)

::::: What's not been explained is how it is "liberalism" to insert ''factual'' information, and nobody's argued that it was not factual. So therefore nobody has explained just what he did wrong. In fact, he was, as he said, abiding by the commandments and guidelines, and it was TK who hasn't followed editing etiquette in reverting him. There is no ''absolute requirement'' to discuss proposed changes on talk pages first, yet he has been hauled over the coals for not doing so, and banned for rightly protesting his innocence. Worse, after being threatened and told that he should discuss his edits, he ''did'' try and discuss his edits here, only to have said discussion ignored, and further threats issued. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: OK, so the ACLU edit is not liberalism, just a defense of liberals (ACLU). But in doing so, claiming that they were very concerned which in fact is not factual. You and me both know that the ACLU is no stranger to defending privacy in the courts. Joe the Plumber did not make concern enough to pursue. The Campos edit was liberalism. He was in fact trying to discredit the GOP with a references that only the GOP want mandatory sentencing, not liberals and that the GOP feels it as the ONLY solution, when they don't. When it is in fact not exclusive to the GOP (Ca. democrats enacted the same law) and is not the only solution in the national platform. He wanted me to add the Ca. info but I feel the mandatory min. info didn't belong their in the first place. So JohnnyBB is a liberal with a non-Conservative agenda, that has a beef with administrators. PJR, if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler! I give credit to Greg Gutfeld's 'Red-eye' for that fancy statement. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::::: Jpatt, I was not claiming that the edit was totally acceptable. I was claiming that it was reverted without explanation, the user inappropriately threatened, told to discuss the edit, then blocked when he ''did'' discuss the edit, because he dared to question his treatment. There is nothing wrong with defending liberals ''per se''; if they have been falsely accused, for example, then they deserved to be defended as much as anybody else. And just because someone does defend a liberal doesn't mean that they themselves are liberal. That is illogical. So yes, I do disagree with you, and therefore calling me names ("worse than Hitler") is arrogant and rude, and especially inappropriate for a fellow administrator. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

{{cquote|Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. '''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.'''}} [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators#Duties_and_Authority]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: That does not give you carte blanche to inappropriately threaten editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The Privacy Section was inappropriate. Two referenced inconsequential letters, which have no legal effect, and the third item at best merited a footnote. Placing such a Privacy Section above far more important issues was an obvious distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: Perhaps it was inappropriate. My point is not whether the edit was appropriate in that sense, but the inappropriate ''handling'' of it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Leftist ==
The ACLU is not leftist. Left wing refers primarily to economic policies. The ACLU does not have an economic agenda. Liberal would be far more accurate, especially since a lot of libertarians support the ACLU in many cases. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:31, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

Libertarianism

2009-04-09T18:52:19Z

Gtbob12:

'''Libertarianism''' is a [[Political Philosophy|political philosophy]] that believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in all aspects of life; including economic, personal and in foreign policy matters. Libertarians tend to oppose the rules established by traditional marriage and religious values. The [[French]] [[term]] of ''[[Laissez faire|Laissez-Faire]]'', or ''let us do'', is a term that describes some aspects of the libertarian belief. <ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike Liberals or Conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml]</ref> Libertarianism tends to emphasize an amoral form of individual ''liberty'', and tends to support rights of private property.

The first systematic libertarian was [[Herbert Spencer]] (1820-1903), an English political philosopher whose books such as ''The Man Versus the State'' (1884) had a major impact in Europe and America in the late 19th century.<ref>Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "The First Libertarian," ''Liberty'' (Aug 1999) [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/spencer.htm online] </ref>

[[Ronald Reagan]] stated, "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of [[conservatism]] is libertarianism."

== Libertarian Philosophy ==

Libertarianism is best summed up in the so-called Non-Aggression Principle, which states that government (or "private police agencies" in the anarcho-capitalist variant) should only exist to protect life, liberty, and property from force and fraud.

Libertarianism is closely related to liberalism, if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of [[classical liberal|classical liberalism]]. Libertarians in America tend to be [[liberal]] on social issues but [[conservative]] on economic issues. Libertarians generally oppose government regulation of drugs, prostitution, marriage (including bans of [[same-sex marriage]] or [[polygamy]]), and [[euthanasia]]. The Libertarian Party officially supports legalized [[abortion]], however, libertarians themselves are divided on the issue, since government protection from force depends on the personhood of the unborn baby (or fetus). They oppose restrictions on [[pornography]]. However, they also oppose [[universal health care]], [[taxes]] and the [[welfare state]]. They are strong supporters of [[school choice]], and oppose continuing the [[public school]] system. Some libertarians support [[school vouchers]], while others are skeptical due to the issue of government influence over [[private education]].

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).

== Libertarian Factions ==

Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Thus, more libertarians exist than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Socially liberal [[Republicans]], as well as fiscally conservative [[Democrats]] may have views closest to libertarians. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[Minarchism|minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else. [[Ayn Rand]] was a minarchist.

Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism.

== Libertarian Thought in America ==

While there are libertarian factions within the [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] [[parties]], neither party is particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. Libertarians point out that such a view contradicts those of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who summarized it most eloquently, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Libertarians are also generally opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The libertarian movement generally praises the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstepped constitutional limits. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very reason the national government is the size it is today.

== Notable Libertarians ==
Libertarian-oriented historic figures include [[Adam Smith]], Thomas Paine, [[George Mason]], [[Herbert Spencer]], [[William Graham Sumner]], [[Carl Menger]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], H. L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane, [[Albert Jay Nock]], [[Frédéric Bastiat]], Richard Cobden, and [[Henry David Thoreau]].

The most influential libertarian of the 20th century was [[Milton Friedman]] (1912-2006), a leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]].

*[[Ron Paul]], 1988 Libertarian Party and 2008 Republican Party presidential candidate. Ron Paul is considered to be of the Constitutionalist and [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarian]] schools of libertarian thought.
*The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, opponent of the therapeutic state and compulsory mental institutionalization.
*Nobel Laureate economists [[Milton Friedman]], [[F.A. Hayek]], [[Ronald Coase]], Gary Becker, James Buchanan, [[George Stigler]], and Vernon Smith.
*The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of some people in the libertarian movement, while others find her materialism and [[atheism]] incompatible with moral ethics and natural rights and law.
*[[Robert LeFevre]], significant in promoting libertarian philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s before it was a well-defined movement, with his "Freedom School" seminars on political and economic philosophy.
*[[Karl Hess]], speechwriter for [[Barry Goldwater]] credited with penning Goldwater's famous 1964 statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Hess later became a major figure in the Libertarian Party.
*[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought to life the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was an economist of the [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian School]].
*[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], a significant figure in 1970s libertarianism, whose influence waned considerably after the rise of the Libertarian Party as he opposed political parties and voting as being against libertarian principles. He proposed instead a purely marketplace-based route to a free society, such as [[tax resistance]] and doing business "off the books".
*[[Robert A. Heinlein]], science fiction author, whose 1966 novel ''The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress'' was an influence on the movement.
*[[L. Neil Smith]], [[J. Neil Schulman]], and [[Brad Linaweaver]], science fiction writers.
*Several popular financial writers including [[Harry Browne]] and [[Howard J. Ruff]]. Browne would later run for President, twice, on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ruff declared his political philosophy as libertarian but as a socially conservative [[Mormon]] made an exception on issues like abortion and prostitution, where he disagreed with the libertarian view.
*[[Penn and Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelicals preaching [[atheism]] and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.
*The Canadian rock band [[Rush]], which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics.
*Humorist Dave Barry, actor/comedian Drew Carey, actor Denis Leary, former MTV VJ Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery, actor Kurt Russell, investigative reporter [[John Stossel]], and the late rocker Frank Zappa have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party.
*Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of [[South Park]], proclaimed that they are libertarians. While South Park often offend conservative positions like religion, are vulgar, and support evolution they also make fun of liberals positions such as political correctness and environmentalism. <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html] Parker and Stone, Reason Magazine</ref>. The phrases "South Park Conservative" (the name of a book) and "South Park Republican" are used to describe the followers of these beliefs.
*[[Ed Clark]], the Libertarian Party's 1980 nominee for President. Clark obtained the highest popular vote percentage to date for a Libertarian candidate.

== External links ==
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]

== See also ==
* [[Herbert Spencer]]
* [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]]
* [[Republican Liberty Caucus]]
==Further reading==
* Boaz, David. '' The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Reader-Contemporary-Writings-Friedman/dp/0684847671/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223323253&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Doherty, Brian. ''Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement'' (2008)
* Hamowy, Ronald, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism'' (Sage, 2008), 644pp, sponsored by the Cato Institute; [http://www.sage-ereference.com/PublicBrowse.html Online at some academic libraries]
* Murray, Charles. ''What It Means to Be a Libertarian'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Tilman, Rick. ''Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Libertarian-Economists-Contributions-Economics/dp/0313315582/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Libertarianism]]