Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children

2008-08-17T21:09:20Z

GunnerRecall:

{{debate-science}}

A lot of conservative media claims that modern music is negatively influencing and corrupting children and teenagers. But does it really? And to what extent? [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 06:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I don't think so. I know that I, as an older teenager, listen to a lot of the bands that conservatives condemn, such as Rammstein, System of a Down and a lot of other heavy metal bands. Yes I think there are problems when musicians seem to be advocating immoral behaviour in their music or lifestyles, but I think that most bands only advocate behavoiur that conservatives see as immoral, rather then us liberals, so its often a matter of opinion or perception. So mayb youths are being "corrupted" from a conserative christian POV but from a liberal POV its just life. In that case its up the parents to be responsible about what they want their children hearing. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:41, 23 June 2008

==Yes==
:Yes... *nods nods*. I usually drive a bit faster when listening to anything 160bpms or higher--though I never exceed 70 MPH on a major highway; speed limit = 65 MPH.
:Just an example:
::A rising female musician--not saying the name, but it's easy to guess--promotes "experimenting" in one of her songs. The song can easily become stuck in your head. The listener can begin to question, "Hmm, I wonder what that would be like?" Life continues... "the environment forms the creature" and the listener could possibly answer her question.
:[[User:NathanG|Nate]] 20:51, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Well first off, I don't see how experimenting is bad. Maybe if the listener has no idea how to practice safe sex due to their government-run schools not telling them anything but "OMG DONT HAVE SECKS OMG", causing them to do something stupid....but, uh...I digress. At any rate, I think that if someone, say, kills people because a Slayer song told them to, then that person '''already''' had a bit of a mental....issue. Or issues. Honestly, I think this hooplah about music causing kids to kill is just another example of dissasociating blame. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 17:09, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2008-08-17T20:54:42Z

GunnerRecall:

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is "a development disorder which begins in early childhood". That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they're sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that's the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren't immoral either. I mean, you can't help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don't think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn't have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones' species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus.....
==References==
<references/>
Hellooooooooooo??
Just because it is not "Normal" ~ doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
Some of history's greats are also not "normal".
We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall.
He doesn't need to be "fixed".
Some more "not normal" greats in history are:
Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, ............. Oh, I could go on and on.

:Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God's law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Basically... ==
People hate homosexuality because it's different. It's as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it's not the norm, people hate it. It's that simple. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

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

2008-08-17T20:52:04Z

GunnerRecall:

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

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

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

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

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

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

2008-08-17T20:49:36Z

GunnerRecall:

Debate:Is Rap music torture?

2008-08-17T20:47:01Z

GunnerRecall:

According to ''ABC News'', suspected terrorists undergoing [[coercive interrogation]] have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

:I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.

:I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.

:What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?

:If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's ''Sabre Dance,'' it would deprive me of sleep.

:But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::What [[User:Dpbsmith|he]] said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if ''we'd'' pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Who said anything about ''brain'' damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - ''on the ears''.

:::::Point taken. I amend my statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it? {{unsigned|JessicaS}}

:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

West Coast rap or East Coast rap? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]]

I kind of think that Country music can be tourture. [[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:37, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
It makes my ears bleed. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:56, 27 November 2007 (EST)

It's annoying. All of the songs are about the same thing.--[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

==No==
As JessicaS above said, people wouldn't listen to it if it was torture. Although, I do find it rather funny that it has been used as a weapon against hostage-takers etc. [[User:SavedByGod|SavedByGod]] 12:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== No ==
It truly matters.--[[User:Aquacadet|Aquacadet]] 17:35, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It is horrible in most cases. >:( [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 18:42, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Depends, really ==
"rap" is a very broad term, with TONS of subgenres and such. Theres some good rap out there, like NWA and some of the other old-school rap (which I like.). Just...don't bash an entire genre based on a single song.

But I agree that most hip-hop, or crunk music that's '''popular''' is crap. Most people who really do like rap agree.

Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?

2008-08-17T20:43:02Z

GunnerRecall:

{{Move|Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?}}

{{debate}}

==YES==

If you start with any of these, you are likely to move on to harder stuff. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:Please define "likely" and your evidence that it is true. I drink and have never used either marijuana or nicotine. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 18:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!
::—Meredith Willson, "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

At one time in my life, I thought marijuana was great, why the hell is illegal? I thought that it was much better to smoke pot than drink alcohol (nobody beat their wife from smokin pot). I figured out later in life that the people I grew up with who smoked, no longer found the buzz suffucient, experimented with stronger drugs then they all ended up with coke problems, crack, ultimately strung out on prescription drugs like oxycotin. Weed: gateway drug? you bet it is. Alcohol is a gateway to insanity. Nicotine is a gateway to a painful decline of health and ultimately ones death.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:Marihuana, yes, but only because it is illegal. Yes for the same reason to a lesser extent for the ethyl and the other leaf (illegal for under-21 and under-18). Why? Well, to quote an old friend, it gets you used to meeting seedy types in suspect environments and transacting clandestine deals. If it was legal, no one using it would learn how to buy illegal drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So if Marijuana were legalized, would it help prevent people from going on to harder drugs? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::That the conclusion that can be drawn from his theory, yes. They would still have yet to learn how to find drug dealers and interact with them, for example. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There's another reason to say "yes", which also relates to society and its rules rather than the drugs in question. That is that the herbal jazz cigarettes are described to the uninitiated as being a terrible, terrible thing (in various education programs and pamphlets). If and when the youth actually ''tries'' the sweet leaf, they discover it's "not so bad" after all. Then they might very well question the things they have been told about "harder" drugs. [[User:Human|Human]] 12:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I feel that weed GENERALLY, not always, is a gateway drug. Most people I know that smoke Marijuana are not taking anything else. However I believe that once taken the need or the drive to take something stronger is felt.--[[User:DudeImJon|DudeImJon]] 14:32, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: I had some friends that started to experiment with alcohol, marijuanna, and cigarettes during senior year of high school. Now all of them are on harder stuff like crystal meth and cocaine. So yes, they are gateway drugs. Marijuanna is already illegal and I believe that we need to ban substances such as alcohol and nicotine. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

==NO==

There is no evidence for this. That's all a bunch of moralistic hooey. -- (unsigned remark by [[User:Ed Poor]], who gave starting comments for both the "yes" and "no sections")

:''Experts Discount Marijuana as Big Factor in Crime but Drive on It Will Be Pressed.'' Studies by the Committee on the Marijuana problem in the City of New York, appointed by Mayor La Guardia in January, 1939, have led the committee to the conclusion that ... "juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice o smoking marijuana." Further findings are ... that its use "does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocain[sic] addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastropic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded."
::—''New York Times,'' January 12, 1945, p. 22
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith: most people drink alcohol (some more than others) and most of them probably started in their teens, yet most people do not became heavy drug users as they get older, it's as simple as that.

:I think you mistook what I was saying. I didn't write the sentence that opened the section, Ed Poor did. I did indeed post a quotation from a news story about a 1945 mayor commision that concluded that the use of marijuana did not lead to the use of heroin or "cocain." In terms of which side I'm on, all I can say is that I haven't seen any convincing reason for treating alcohol and marijuana as being in ''different categories'' in terms of the law or public policy. Nicotine is interesting because it is probably more damaging to health and more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, but does not cause intoxication, so nicotine users pose less of a risk to others... there's no issue of "driving while smoking." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As for Marijuana, how many of today's businesspeople, doctors, scientists, etc have smoked some while they were in college?
I don't claim to know the exact percentage, but I think that proves a point.
:::[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::::Add "ex-Presidents of the United States" to the list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:32, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Add current Presidents to this list. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:33, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I smoked marijuna every week for three years, but never tried anything harder. Since I moved back to the US in 2001, I haven't touched it. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:My various addictions, habits, and chemical/herbal recreations over the decades have never shown any correlations. And none of the good stuff (like single malt) led to nasty white powder problems. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no such thing as a "gateway" drug, saying marijuana led to heroin is like saying Florida led to North Pole. It's all the Orwellian government and its corrupt minions. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

All the statisitcs I've seen on this look at it backwards. They say X% of cocaine users started out using marijuana. The significant statistic is the percentage of marijuana smokers who go on to use cocaine. I never see those statistics quoted. Perhaps French fries are a gateway drug; I bet more than 90% of cocaine users in this country had previously eaten French fries at some point. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:19, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana is, but alcohol and tobacco aren't ==
No, I don't happen to believe this is true, but of course this ''is'' the conventional wisdom, and an often-cited rationale for treating marijuana in a different way, in the law and as a matter of public policy, from alcohol and tobacco. Hey, Ed, exactly what were you up to when you put all three of them together? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:Agree, I would say it is people's natural instinct to resist change, "addiction to status quo". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]] 15:27, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
::Let's not forget that the only reason alcohol is legal in this country is that when it was made illegal, that caused new problems without stopping people from drinking. I don't think anyone who has considered the question honestly can maintain that alcohol is not a far more dangerous drug than marijuana or nicotine or probably many other illegal drugs. Alcohol causes violence, reckless behavior, etc., in ways that even the strongest opiates cannot. It is not as addictive as many other drugs, but addiction to it is among the most damaging addictions to health, both physical and mental, and the most resistant to cure. (This may be only because it is so widely available.) Moreover, there is a substantial youth culture centered around drinking. If the worst thing that could be said about this culture was that it brought youth to other drugs, that would be an improvement. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:45, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Definitely ==

== That's difficult ==
I would say that Marijuana is, but only because it is illegal, and therefore must be purchased from a guy who'd also like to hook you on anything he can, and isn't real scrupulous about how that gets done. Tobacco is, maybe. I think people are unlikely to try smoked drugs without first smoking cigarettes, but that may be because those two things are attractive to the same people, and cigarettes are a bit easier to come by. Alcohol is not.

== Absolutely not ==
Marijuana is not a gateway drug in any sense of the word. If you smoke/have been smoking marijuana for a while, you will not eventually start heroine, cocaine, meth, etc. The whole myth of it being a gateway drug is just that: A myth, mostly created by the government during the "Just say no" period of the Drug War. In addition, marijuana is not lethal (Unless you smoke a couple THOUSAND.), and it does not kill braincells. These are, once again, just myths/lies/fibs/etc created by the government. Simple, really. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)