Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jesus Christ

2008-12-17T22:11:25Z

HKing: Undo revision 589279 by RowanE (Talk) I wish I had rollback. This site seems to be getting slower...

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===

== Teachings of Jesus ==

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

Homosexual Agenda

2008-11-14T21:10:59Z

HKing: Undo revision 557703 by Oldmanak (Talk) rvv

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''homosexual agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives. The ideology and goals, as explained further below, include restricting free speech, obtaining special treatment, distorting science, and interfering with freedom of association. Like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda threatens basic freedoms, including the First Amendment.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html</ref>

It is an agenda that [[gay rights]] activists set in the late 1980s, in a book called ''After the Ball,'' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref>''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted at http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

[[Focus on the Family]] quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1</ref>}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

== The Goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#censoring biblical condemnations of homosexuality and evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html</ref> <ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html</ref>
#establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950</ref>
#expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html</ref>
#ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); ''Able v. United States'', 155 F.3d 628(2d Cir. 1998) (military)</ref>
#promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref>
#*in places like Massachusetts and California — where the gay lobby is the strongest — it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys — "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual." Or — "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>
#promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2</ref>
#force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination <ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/jun/01/060106132.html</ref>
#getting more rights in prison
#*Gay and Lesbian Prisoners in California Allowed Conjugal Visits <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277137,00.html</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref>
*New Hampshire law makes same-sex civil unions legal <ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

: Soliciting donations
: Encouraging email activism
: Producing and disseminating gay reform information
: Influencing local media in what stories they produce
: Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp</ref>

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

== References ==

<references/>

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press

==See also==
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*"[[Homophobia]]"
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Exegesis

2008-11-14T05:23:36Z

HKing:

'''Exegesis''' consists of a thorough interpretation of the [[Bible]]. The term is taken from the [[Greek]] word ἐξηγεῖσθαι, which means "to lead out."

The term '''exegesis''' can also describe scholarly analysis of other authoritative texts.

{{stub}}

[[Category:Christian Terms]]
[[Category:Bible Study]]

Breach of contract

2008-11-14T05:19:10Z

HKing:

A '''breach of contract''' is an unjustified failure to perform when performance is due.

== See also ==
*[[Contract]]
*[[Subject matter jurisdiction]]
*[[Zoning commission]]

== External links ==

*[http://dictionary.law.com/ Law Dictionary]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

[[Category:Law]]

Kansas (band)

2008-11-14T05:15:39Z

HKing:

'''Kansas''' was a classic [[rock music]] band from Topeka, Kansas whose commercial heyday was from 1976-1986. They were formed from the ashes of several Topeka-area bands of the early 1970s. Featuring the songwriting of keyboardist Kerry Livgren and vocalist Steve Walsh, the other members of the original lineup were bassist Dave Hope, violinist Robbie Steinhardt, drummer Phil Ehart, and guitarist Rich Williams. Kansas gained a record contract with Kirshner Records, a CBS subsidiary. Three early 1970s albums charted on the lower reaches of the album charts, but it was with their 1976 hit "Carry On Wayward Son" that the band hit the big time. That was from their album ''Leftoverture''. The follow-up album, ''Point of Know Return'' from late 1977 was even more popular with the hits "Dust in the Wind" and the title track.

On their 1979 tour while touring for the ''Monolith'' album, Kerry Livgren accepted [[Jesus Christ]] as his personal savior. This was followed by Dave Hope also becoming a Christian on their 1980 tour. As a result Kansas' three early 1980s albums, ''Audio-Visions'', ''Vinyl Confessions'', and ''Drastic Measures'', all had strong [[Christian]] themes in the lyrics. Steve Walsh left in 1981 over lyrical and artistic differences during this time of change for the band, followed by the departure of Robbie Steinhardt the next year. Walsh's replacement on vocals was John Elefante, also a Christian, who sung on the ''Vinyl Confessions'' and ''Drastic Measures'' albums. The band continued to chart with hit singles such as "Play the Game Tonight" in 1982.

Kerry Livgren co-authored a book with Christian writer Kenneth Boa during this time, ''Seeds of Change''. In the book he told the history of the band Kansas, explained the meanings of the lyrics he had written for the band's early albums (many of which dealt with a striving search for the meaning of life), and how the search led to him becoming a Christian. ''Seeds of Change'' was also the title of a 1980 solo album by Kerry Livgren.

Tiring of dealing with record company pressure to tone down their Christian lyrics and churn out commercial pop hits (which Livgren addressed with the biting commentary in the song "Mainstream"), Kansas broke up at the end of 1983 after playing a final [[New Year's Eve]] concert. Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope started the [[Christian Rock]] band "A.D.", while John Elefante pursued a solo career in contemporary Christian music and, with his brother Dino Elefante, as a Christian music producer.

The remaining members regrouped with Steve Walsh back on vocals and with Steve Morse, formerly of the [[Dixie Dregs]], also joining the band. This resulted in their 1986 album ''Power'', which included Kansas' last Top 20 hit single, "All I Wanted". This lineup released one more album, ''In the Spirit of Things'', in 1988, a concept album about a historic flood that hit a small Kansas town during [[World War II]]. It is interesting that despite the departure of the three Christian members from the band, both of these albums have some Christian themes, especially the latter which had backing vocals from Rev. James Cleveland & The Southern California Community Choir. ''In the Spirit of Things'' was a commercial flop, however.

The band has since regrouped several times under different lineups. Two of the resulting studio albums, ''Freaks of Nature'' and ''Somewhere to Elsewhere'', both featured Kerry Livgren returning to write new material for the band. The latter, released in 2000, was written entirely by Kerry Livgren with Christian themes. Today, Livgren and Elefante are both still active in contemporary Christian music, while Rev. Dave Hope is an ordained minister in a [[Continuing Anglican]] parish in [[Florida]].

==References==
* Livgren, Kerry and Kenneth Boa. ''Seeds of Change''. 1983, Crossway Books.
* [http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Kerry_Livgren.html Cornerstone magazine interview with Kerry Livgren]
* [http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/index.cfm?id=BF6485E0-7D78-400D-886D69B31D962C41 2006 announcement of Dave Hope's ordination as an Anglican minister]

[[Category:Rock Bands]]

Lt. Governor

2008-11-14T05:12:37Z

HKing: Redirecting to Lieutenant Governor

#redirect[[Lieutenant Governor]]

User talk:LowKey

2008-11-14T05:11:07Z

HKing:

<big>Hello, I am LowKey.</big>

I don't have too much to say at the moment. I will probably mostly read articles and talk pages before I do much editing.

{{Useful links}}

Lemme guess... LowKey Lyesmith? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:They call him Mr World these days ^_^ [[User:HKing|HKing]] 00:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Colin Powell

2008-10-20T01:03:34Z

HKing: Undo revision 539161 by LashandraM (Talk)

[[Image:Colin_Powell.jpg|right|200px]]
'''General Colin Luther Powell''', United States Army (Ret.) (born April 5, 1937) was the 65th [[United States]] [[Secretary of State]] (2001-05) under President [[George W. Bush]] and a liberal member of the [[Republican]] Party. He became the highest ranking African American government official in the history of the United States. As a General in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993).

==Military career==
While at City College Powell joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and later described it as one of the happiest experiences of his life: finding something he loved and could do well, he had "found himself." After graduating from City College in June 1958, he was granted a commission as an Army Second Lieutenant. Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and later served as a General. During his military career Powell received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal.

==Presidential appointments==
At the age of 49, Powell became President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. He retained his Army commission (he was a Lieutenant General at the time of his nomination) while serving as National Security Advisor. After his tenure, Powell was promoted to 4-star General under President [[George H.W. Bush]].

From 1989 to 1993, General Powell served as chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]], the highest [[military]] position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of [[Panama]] in 1989 to remove General [[Manuel Noriega]] from power in and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]]. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior". After the end of Persian Gulf War, Colin Powell outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the [[Powell Doctrine]]. the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, President George W. Bush talks with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Later as Secretary of State in the Bush [[administration]], Powell was tremendously popular among the American people. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the [[War on Terrorism]]. He spoke out in favor of the 2003 Invasion of [[Iraq]], saying that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

==Political views==
Colin Powell is a [[liberal]] or moderate Republican who is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], supports affirmative action and "reasonable" gun control. Although Powell is against [[gay]] marriage, he supports and helped crafted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the United States military. He has also been critical of the current policy in Iraq. In 2005, Powell telephoned two Senator's, [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]] and [[Chuck Hagel]] of [[Nebraska]] (also liberal Republicans) asking them to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. In September 2005, Powell criticized the government's response to [[Hurricane Katrina]]. Powell was mentioned as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]]<ref>http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html</ref>, but said he was no longer interested in elective office. On 19 October 2008, he endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying that Obama was a "transformational figure coming into the world stage" [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/] and expressing disappointment in what he called the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of [[Sarah Palin]] as the Republican vice presidential nominee [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-presiden-1/]. Powell went on to criticize other Republicans for insisting that Obama is a Muslim stating "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the Republican Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7678788.stm</ref>

==Family and Personal Information==
Powell has been married to Alma Vivian Johnson since 1962. They have one child, a son, Michael (1963). The Powells are [[Episcopalians]]. One of Colin Powell's hobbies is restoring classic automobiles<ref>http://www.4driversonly.com/50226711/colin_powell_drives_a_66_volvo.php</ref>.

==External links==
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html, WhiteHouse.gov biography]

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powell, Colin}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Tony Blair

2008-10-19T22:17:26Z

HKing: rvv

{{Prime Minister
|image=Tblair.jpg
|seq=73
|term_start=May 2 1997
|term_end=June 24 2007
|previous=John Major
|party=Labour Party
|next=Gordon Brown
|birth_date=May 6 1953
|birth_place=Edinburgh
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Cherie Blair|Cherie Booth]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
}}
'''Anthony Charles Lynton Blair''', more commonly known as '''Tony Blair''', (born May 6, 1953) is a former [[Prime Minister]] of the [[United Kingdom]]. The [[Labour Party]]'s longest-serving Prime Minister, he served from May 2, 1997 to June 27, 2007, succeeding the Conservative Party's [[John Major]] and preceding [[Gordon Brown]]. Blair is also the only person to have led the Labour Party to three consecutive general election victories, and the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term.

He was elected to the Labour Party leadership in 1994 following the unexpected death of his predecessor, John Smith. As well as being leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Blair also served as the [[Member of Parliament|MP]] for Sedgefield, a constituency in [[County Durham]] in north-east England.

While the Labour Party is a self-described "democratic, [[socialist]] party"<ref>[http://www.labour.org.uk/how_we_work Labour: How we work]</ref>, Blair coined the phrases "[[New Labour]]" and "[[The Third Way]]" to distinguish his own pro-[[business]] policies from the more [[collectivist]] platform of his predecessors. He was criticized by some more left-wing members of the Labour Party for "selling out" to conservative thinking, particularly in his support for the [[United States]] in the [[Iraq War]]. On the other hand, Blair's policies were decidedly [[liberal]] by American standards: they have included increases in taxation, increases in government spending (particularly on public schools and Britain's [[National Health Service|public healthcare system]]), the introduction and subsequent increases of a minimum wage, and support for equal rights for gay people.

== Personal ==
The son of a barrister and lecturer Leo Blair, Tony Blair was born in [[Edinburgh]], but spent most of his childhood in Durham. At the age of 14 he returned to Edinburgh to finish his education at Fettes College. Blair was known as a cheeky, rebellious, and argumentative schoolboy, and at 17 he was threatened with expulsion for persistently breaking school rules.<ref name="bbc">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6506365.stm The Tony Blair Story] BBC News 10 May 2007</ref>. After leaving Fettes with three A levels he studied law at [[Oxford University]], and went on to become a barrister (Lincoln's Inn) himself, before entering politics. Blair married his wife, [[Liverpool]]-born Cherie Booth QC a barrister and daughter of the actor Tony Booth, in 1980, and they have four children.

Blair is a competent guitar player and at university was a member of a rock band called Ugly Rumours. His favourite music includes [[The Beatles]], [[The Rolling Stones]], [[Led Zeppelin]], [[Free (band)|Free]], [[Bruce Springsteen]], [[U2]], [[Coldplay]], [[The Foo Fighters]], and [[Simply Red]].<ref name="bbc" />

While Blair rarely discusses his religious faith in public - and had been advised by his spokesman Alistair Campbell that "We don't do God, Mate" <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/05/05/dl0501.xml A Question of Faith] Daily Telegraph 5 May 2003</ref> - he is a convinced Christian. His wife Cherie is a Catholic and Blair converted to Catholicism in 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm Tony Blair joins Catholic Church] BBC News 22 December 2007</ref>

==Blair's political career==

A combination of the Labour Party's new-found moderation, Blair's personal popularity and the deep unpopularity of the Conservatives under [[John Major]] resulted in a landslide victory for Blair and his party in the 1997 general [[election]], ending 18 years of [[Conservative]] government. Labour easily won re-election in 2001 and in 2005, although with losses.

In December 2006, Blair became the first active Prime Minister to be interviewed in a police investigation, <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6292033.stm Honours police quizzed McConnell] BBC News 23 January 2007</ref> and again in January 2007<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6320399.stm Blair interviewed again by police] BBC News 1 February 2007</ref>, over allegations he had illegally ''nominated'' donors to the Labour Party for peerages - the so called "Cash for Honours" scandal. The government stressed that he was being interviewed only as a witness however, and the nominations of the money lenders were rejected by the independent appointments' commission.<ref name="bbc" /> However the allegations were a popular story in the media, and dogged his final months in office. Tony Blair was superseded by [[Gordon Brown]] as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in June 2007.

==Blair's policies==

During Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, the [[Labour party|Labour]] government made the Bank of England independent, allowing them to set the nation's interest rates (which had previously been set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and has introduced a national [[minimum wage]], in 1998, which has gradually been increased over time. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained their own legislatures, and limited attempts have been made to devolve power to the regions of England (although outside of [[London]] these have not been successful). Blair's government has also banned fox-hunting, cigarette smoking in public places and public demonstrations within 1 kilometre of Parliament, as well as preparing the way for a national identity card and increased the time that suspects can be held in police custody without charge to 28 days. His government was also notable for legislating an equal age of consent for homosexuals, civil partnership laws, and the abolition of Clause 28 (a measure introduced by the previous Conservative administration which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools).

One of the most controversial aspects of Blair's premiership was been his commitment to and support of the Iraq war, which strongly divided opinion, both in Parliament and among the British people. His strong support of America and President [[George W. Bush]] in particular have set him apart from most European leaders, especially with the parties of the left (including his own Labour Party). This came at considerable political cost with his own popularity suffering greatly, and the Government lost considerable support in the 2005 general election as a result.

==Blair and the media==

In the 1990s in particular, Blair was seen as a charismatic leader, with formidable media performing skills. His most famous television appearance was his tribute to [[Diana, Princess of Wales]] on the morning after her death in August 1997, in which he described her as "the People's Princess" and "the Queen of Hearts". Blair has, however, acquired a reputation for excessive news management, and even for dishonesty, particularly after the Iraq War.

He is also the only Prime Minister to provide his own voice in an episode of ''[[The Simpsons]]'', in the episode "The Regina Monologues".

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Labour Party]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Blair, Tony}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]

User:HKing

2008-10-19T14:57:44Z

HKing:

{{userboxtop}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=rdj |info=This user cares because you do.}}
{{User Geek}}
{{User en-UK}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{User Libertarian}}
{{User GuardDogFear}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User donut_missed}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User CPA1Blk}}
{{User no death penalty}}
{{User moderatecapitalist}}
{{User JesusTeachings}}
{{User pubschool}}
{{userboxbottom}}
Hi!

User:HKing

2008-10-19T14:54:10Z

HKing: Undo revision 435890 by Ljack (Talk) Not my talk page, but thanks.

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2008-10-18T00:09:55Z

HKing: Undo revision 538094 by Kuntpsy (Talk)

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the current method of insta-banning anyone for 5 years for any edit that isn't evangelically conservative is working very well, actually.--[[User:Colbertnation2|Colbertnation2]] 19:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Terry, I don't for the life of me understand how you can connect modernism, postmodernism, etc., with political positioning. There is a wide range of political views associated with either. Modernism has to include both Marx and Jefferson, for example. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:04, 17 November 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Liberals will not recognise that there is such a thing as the truth and righteousness. They are embroiled in their own pseudo-intellectual activities, such as the vain search for moral relativism. Conservapedia is neutral to the facts, as it should be. We present the facts, people make up their own minds then. Liberals insist on compensating for something or someone in order to try and give a balanced viewpoint when the truth is that sometimes God made some horrible, evil people, and we should be pointing that out, not pointing out that for example Hitler was good with dogs and therefore had a nice side. Its ridiculous. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

As a non-conservative, I have to say that as it stands, this website has absolutely no credibility outside conservative/fundamentalist circles. Your articles, particularly science issues, and on things like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality read more like a fred phelps handout or a chick tract than a dictionary. If your guys goal is to create an insular, self congratulating source of propaganda, you've succeeded. If your goal was to make an 'unbiased' version of wikipedia, you've merely gone in the exact opposite direction. I wish you all luck. -s

I think religious bias is something to be worried about. For example, the article on [[Salvation]] shows only one facet of Salvation (e.g. the protestant version of the satisfaction theory) but the admins say it is true and will not let it be changed. Of course, this alienates Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians. Also, it makes the conservapedia an unreliable source for students writing papers on the history of theology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Will someone please explain ==
How does the term "conservative" automatically mean fair and balanced AND the truth?

== Idea ==
Perhaps the name should be objectivepedia, if one were wanting to have an un-biased, truthful, and accurate reference tool.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality

2008-10-18T00:07:40Z

HKing: rvv

#REDIRECT [[Sexual abuse being a contributing factor for homosexuality]]

John F. Kennedy's "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" Speech

2008-10-16T04:26:42Z

HKing: /* Text of "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" */ cquote

[[Image:JohnFKennedyBerlin.jpg|right|300px|thumb|John F. Kennedy in Berlin, Germany, June 26, 1963]]
In August 1961, the world woke up to the fact that a wall was suddenly erected to stop the mass exodus of people fleeing communist East Berlin for the freedom of West Berlin and the non-Communist world. The [[Berlin Wall]] was a mass of concrete, barbed wire, stone, and later, land mines, that cut into the heart of the city, separating families and friends. For 28 years, it stood as a grim symbol of the gulf between the Communist East and the non-Communist West; nearly two hundred victims lay dead in its shadow, gunned down by border guards to keep them from escaping.

Two years after it was built, President [[John F. Kennedy]] made an historic speech at the wall on June 26, 1963, questioning the thoughts and motives of people "...who say that Communism is the wave of the future." "Let them come to Berlin," was his answer, so they may see for themselves just what communism, symbolized by the stark presence of the wall, was really about.

==Text of "Ich Bin Ein Berliner"==
{{cquote|I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."

I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!

There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

What is true of this city is true of Germany--real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." <ref>[http://www.lsg.musin.de/geschichte/Material/Quellen/1963-kennedy.htm Ich bin ein Berliner!]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.historicaldocuments.com/JohnFKennedyBerlinSpeech.htm Historical Documents]</ref>}}

==References==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6nQhss4Yc Video of Kennedy's speech in Berlin, from YouTube]
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
[[Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech]]

[[Category:American State Papers]][[Category:John F. Kennedy]][[Category:Cold War]]

Talk:Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T21:10:27Z

HKing: We jellyfish do not understand your human conflicts.

Hey Jellyfish, care to say why you dismissed and reverted my edit as "nonsense"? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:48, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:Hi, Autofire. Sorry about that, I got carried away after reverting an endless production line of vandals. But unless I'm mistaken, didn't your edit argue that the link between Evolutionism and Social Darwinism was unsound or something? I would have thought that link was self-evident, and it seems to be prefectly in line with the official viewpoint of this site. Am I missing something? '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 16:51, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::My edit argued that the theory of evolution did not ''necessitate'' SD; rather, SD was the result of people misusing the theory to justify their racist ideas. I say "misusing" because the theory of evolution itself does not advocate mass murder/genocide. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I would've thought that the avocacy was implicit. Basically, I'm not a very long-established member of the site, but it seems like you're going against several of its stated aims here. '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 16:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I'd rather stick with the facts than conform to an ideology. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::A search for facts is always guided by ideology, even when its not admitted. '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 17:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Wow, that seems rather cynical... --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Jellyfish are never cynical, Autofire! It's pretty difficult to be cynical when you have no bones to pick. '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 17:10, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T21:06:56Z

HKing:

Talk:Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T20:59:22Z

HKing: (If "advocacy" really is a word...)

Talk:Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T20:53:14Z

HKing: Thought of a better word. Zing.

Talk:Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T20:51:33Z

HKing:

Arguments about evolution

2008-04-20T20:45:56Z

HKing: Undo revision 435600 by Special:Contributions/AutoFire (User talk:AutoFire) Nonsense.

Arguments about evolution generally use a double standard. For example, if the implications of a theory are offensive (to "our side"), we refuse to consider the theory.

Evolution has been used to justify "[[Social Darwinism]]" and implicated as leading to the [[Holocaust]] wherein Hitler's Nazi government murdered 11 million civilians. Darwinists say it's not fair to criticize evolution on the grounds that non-scientists used it as a basis for bad social policy.

However, intelligent design is often linked with Creationism, and on that basis it has been dismissed from serious consideration. Instead of concentrating on responding to the critique ID makes, for example, the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], evolution advocates have gone to court to suppress any mention of ID in schools; and have sabotaged the careers of educators, scientists and even editors who have dared to present this critique.

In summary, if some people use evolution to justify mass murder, that's no reason to stop teaching about it. But if ID is used to justify religious belief, that linkage means ID can't be taught. This is rank [[hypocrisy]].

Pro-abortion

2008-04-20T20:37:45Z

HKing: Undo revision 435594 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby) Getting pretty sick of this now.

'''Pro-choice''' is a misleading term used to promote [[abortion]]; by its terms it implies pro-''informed'' choice, when in fact pro-choice supporters oppose informing women about the long-term medical harms of the operation. The label can be stated as '''pro-"choice"''', with quotation marks, to reflect a lack of support by the person of ''informed'' choice.

[[Planned Parenthood]] performs nearly 200 abortions for every referral for adoption.

The more accurate term for people and organizations who support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], or otherwise promote [[abortion]], is ''pro-abortion''.

==See Also==
* [[Pro-life]]
* [[Abortion controversy]]
* [[Planned Parenthood]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.ippf.org/ Planned Parenthood]
* [http://www.bpas.org British Pregnancy Advisory Service]

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[category:deceit]]

Iran-Contra affair

2008-04-20T20:26:23Z

HKing: Undo revision 435586 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby)

The '''Iran-Contra Affair''' (also sometimes called '''Iran-gate''') was the result of an arms deal between the [[United States]], [[Iran]] and the Nicaraguan [[Contras]], an anti-communist guerilla group operating against the [[Marxist]] government of [[Nicaragua]]. Essentially, arms were sold to Iran against an international embargo which was spearheaded just years earlier by the United States. The proceeds from this arms sale were then used to purchase additional arms for the Contras operating in the mountains of Nicaragua.

The scandal was first discovered by an assistant to Attorney General [[Ed Meese]], who found a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel [[Oliver North]] that documented the diversion of funds to the Contras. After the discover of the memorandum, President [[Ronald Reagan]] met with both party's of Congress to disclose their findings; Reagan then asked for the appointment of an independent counsel<ref>''An American Life, The Autobiography of Ronald Reagan, pg. 530''</ref>.

In the opinion of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who investigated the affair, under the Arms Export Control Act <ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sup_01_22_10_39_20_II.html </ref> such sales to foreign powers not deemed under the term of the act friendly are illegal. <ref> http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm </ref> Payments to the Contras from the proceeds of private sales, while not illegal, in the opinion of critics were considered highly unethical. Later such arrangements were made explicitly illegal by the [[Boland amendment]] to the Federal Appropriation Bill. The independent counsel's opinion alleged that the Reagan administration set about misleading congressional inquiries and may have withheld some documents.

When the story was blown open by media outlets in the wake of midterm congressional elections after [[Democrats]] retook the Senate in November 1986. The following week President Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were transferred to Iran but he claimed they were not part of an exchange for hostages. In a speech in March of 1987, he acknowledged that the arms were in fact exchanged for hostages, saying that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages." <ref>http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/irancontra.html</ref> The Reagan administration cooperated with the investigation, and no wrongdoing was ever proved. Reagan later stated in his autobiography, "until Ed Meese uncovered North's memorandum, I had not heard a whisper about funds being channeled from the Iranian arms shipments to the Contras, and I would have not approved of it if anyone had suggested it to me....Yes, I believed in helping the Contras; ''but no one, including the President, is above the law''." <ref>''An American Life, The Autobiography of Ronald Reagan, pg. 542''</ref>

[[Michael Ledeen]] was an early player in the affair, and eventually arranged for arms sales to Iran though the Iranian arms dealer [[Manucher Ghorbanifar]]. John Poindexter later resigned and later worked in [[George W. Bush]]'s administration. Oliver North was also a major player in the affair and was called upon to testify before Congress and was questioned for a number of days. His strong answers in the face of Congressional grilling led him to become a type of folk hero at Congress's expense. [[Caspar Weinberger]] was indicted, and pardoned by [[George H.W. Bush]].

==Sources==
*[http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch04p2.htm The CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy: A Review of the Justice Department's Investigations and Prosecutions], December 1997

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Scandals]]

User talk:TedMosby

2008-04-20T20:25:03Z

HKing: New page: You should consider contributing *constructively*. ~~~~

You should consider contributing *constructively*. '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 16:25, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2008-04-20T20:23:38Z

HKing: Undo revision 435580 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby)

{{President
|image=Aaag.jpg
|seq=40
|term_start=January 20, 1981
|term_end=January 20, 1989
|party=Republican
|vp=George H. W. Bush
|previous=Jimmy Carter
|next=George H. W. Bush
|birth_date=February 6, 1911
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA
|death_date=June 5, 2004
|death_place=Bel Air, California
|spouse=Jane Wyman
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=Presbyterian
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>

In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker of the House, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.

==Early Life==
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of War Bonds.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>

Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement." Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "black list" and came to him for help.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref>

==Governor of California==
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:

*Called in the National Guard to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Opposed the Dos Rios Dam.

==Presidency==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Margaret Thatcher]] and some assistance from [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the Warsaw Pact".</ref>

===Economy===
Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.

===Foreign policy===
Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] by the Soviets on September 1, 1983. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>

By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===
In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the Boleyn Amendment forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

This operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications had had been on in that period.

==Cold War victory==
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending [[optimism]] that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra [[confidence]] to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>

[[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>

*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>

==Post-presidency==
Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. In 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity. He died at his Bel-Air home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history.

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>
*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>

== Quotes ==
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the founding fathers many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>

==See also==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:United States Governors]]
[[Category:Ronald Reagan]]
{{USPresidents}}

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T20:23:09Z

HKing: Undo revision 435576 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby)

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008. '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics deny that the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" led to the [[Holocaust]]. But the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[atheist]] liberal [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, conservative Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human," a shockingly ignorant claim that denies its unique horror:

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Pro-abortion

2008-04-20T20:22:18Z

HKing: Undo revision 435574 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby)

User talk:HKing

2008-04-20T20:06:08Z

HKing:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 30 March 2008 (EDT)}}
:Thanks for reverting that vandal!! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::No problem! [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unforgivably self-centred test of my signature ==
Get it right here: [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:How hard could it be to make text purple?? One more time: [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]] 16:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::I give up. '''[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]''' 16:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HKing

2008-04-20T20:00:26Z

HKing:

User talk:HKing

2008-04-20T19:49:11Z

HKing:

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T18:59:32Z

HKing: Compromise. OK?

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:KeithJoseph

2008-04-20T18:55:49Z

HKing: New page: Sorry I had to revert you Keith. But personal attacks on serious issues like this are *always* counterproductive. Welcome to Conservapedia anyway, though. Hope to see you again, ~~~~

Sorry I had to revert you Keith. But personal attacks on serious issues like this are *always* counterproductive. Welcome to Conservapedia anyway, though. Hope to see you again, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]] 14:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T18:52:03Z

HKing: Undo revision 435504 by Special:Contributions/KeithJoseph (User talk:KeithJoseph) No personal attacks, pease. ("You are a very very rude man" etc)

There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine.

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T18:38:51Z

HKing: Undo revision 435496 by Special:Contributions/TedMosby (User talk:TedMosby)

Hierarchy

2008-04-20T18:14:47Z

HKing: Undo revision 435480 by Special:Contributions/Yjaski (User talk:Yjaski)

A '''hierarchy''' is an ordering of persons, ideas, or constructs from less to greater importance, in a tiered organizational structure. Organizations may have a hierarchy, both formally and informally: for example, the [[Senate]] formally has no internal hierarchy, but informally, senior Senators may "rank" above junior Senators.

Intellectually, intangible ideas may be expressed in a hierarchical form. An idea common in [[philosophy]] is the "hierarchy of needs," a theory proposed by [[Abraham Maslow]], who argued that each individual must meet different needs in ascending order before attaining [[self-actualization]], the pinnacle of human self-awareness.<ref>http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/maslow.htm</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[category:Sociology]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-20T18:00:27Z

HKing: Revert that guy's arguing

Phyllis Schlafly

2008-04-20T17:58:04Z

HKing: Undo revision 435462 by Special:Contributions/John1989 (User talk:John1989) You can't do that! That's personal and highly inappropriate.

[[Image:Schlafly phyllis.jpg|right|thumb|Phyllis Schlafly]]
'''Phyllis Schlafly''' is a prominent author and conservative activist, and founder of the [[Eagle Forum | Eagle Forum]].

She is especially noted as one of the leaders of opposition to the [[Equal Rights Amendment|Equal Rights Amendment]].

She was married to John Fred Schlafly, Jr., (1909–1993) for forty-four years, and is the mother of six children: [[John Schlafly | John]], Bruce, [[Roger Schlafly | Roger]], Liza, Anne, and Conservapedia founder [[Andrew Schlafly | Andrew Schlafly]].

[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
:There is no more pristine example of the left's in-crowd snobbery than their treatment of conservative author and activist Phyllis Schlafly. (''Slander'', page 35)

== Writings ==

Phyllis Schlafly first came to American national attention with her book, ''[[A Choice, Not An Echo]]'' 1964. (One of the ten best-selling conservative books of all time; three million copies sold.)

She is also the author or editor of 20 books on subjects as varied as family and feminism (''The Power of the Positive Woman''), nuclear strategy (''Strike From Space and Kissinger on the Couch''), education (''Child Abuse in the Classroom''), child care (''Who Will Rock the Cradle?'' and ''Stronger Families or Bigger Government?,''), and a phonics book (''Turbo Reader''), on the Judiciary: ''The Supremacists''. Her most recent book, ''Feminist Fantasies'', is a collection of essays on feminism in the media, workplace, home, and the military. She is also contributor of ''Great American Conservative Women''.

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 2006
| Title = The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It
| Publisher = Spence Publishing Company
| ID = ISBN 1890626651
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 2003
| Title = Feminist Fantasies
| Publisher = Spence Publishing Company
| ID = ISBN 1890626465
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 2001
| Title = Turbo reader
| Publisher = Pere Marquette Press
| ID = ISBN 0934640165
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 1990
| Title = Who Will Rock the Cradle?: The Battle for Control of Child Care in America
| Publisher = Thomas Nelson Publishers
| ID = ISBN 0849931983
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 1984
| Title = Child Abuse in the Classroom
| Publisher = Crossway Books
| ID = ISBN 0891073655
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 1977
| Title = The Power of the Positive Woman
| Publisher = Crown Pub
| ID = ISBN 0870003739
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 1974
| Title = Kissinger on the Couch
| Publisher = Arlington House Publishers
| ID = ISBN 0870002163
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Schlafly
| Given1 = Phyllis
| Surname2 =
| Given2 =
| Year = 1964
| Title = [[A Choice, Not An Echo]]: The inside story of how American Presidents are chosen
| Publisher = Pere Marquette Pr
| ID = ISBN 0686114868
}}

== See also ==
[[Image:Sweetheart-h.gif|right|175px]]
*[[Homeschooling]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/ Eagle Forum University]
*[http://www.eagleforum.org/ Eagle Forum]
*[http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/index.html Phyllis Schlafly Report Online]
*[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/ Index to Phyllis Schlafly Columns] Syndicated column on social and political topics.
*[http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/schlafly.html Phyllis Schlafly] From Microsoft Encarta.
*[http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Phyllis+Schlafly Articles by Phyllis Schlafly] HUMAN EVENTS.
*[http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/ Phyllis Schlafly, Official site]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Schlafly, Phyllis}}
[[Category:US Jurists]]

Phyllis Schlafly

2008-04-20T17:53:56Z

HKing: Undo revision 435459 by Special:Contributions/John1989 (User talk:John1989) Bullying

Communism

2008-04-19T23:57:25Z

HKing: Undo revision 435169 by Special:Contributions/IHateCommies (User talk:IHateCommies)

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. In many cases, members of the ruling party have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

Marxist dictum theorizes no form of government is needed. The Marxist theory of no government lacks some basic provisions for the protection of [[women's rights]], for example, without courts of law to enforce [[divorce]] [[property]] settlements women would have no legal recourse.

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The atheism in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Apologists of communism==

Apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism.
They say that Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist".
Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Communism]]

User talk:HKing

2008-03-30T16:44:00Z

HKing:

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-03-30T16:43:07Z

HKing: /* Hello! */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>>Jan '08]]

== Superb Blocks and Unblocks ==

Superb blocks and unblocks last night!!! Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. It's a pity people like that feel the need to do what they do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Bolding terms ==

HelpJazz, feel free to ask others, but I think the bolding of the key word in the entry is effective, as in [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:I thought you were only supposed to bold it the first time, but if you like bolding it every time then I won't change any others. The manual of style doesn't really indicated either way. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: The Manual of Style says to bold the first use. It doesn't explicitly say to ''not'' bold other uses, but that is the implication. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Re ==

Oh come on, you know libertarian does not equal liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:''I'' do, very much so. It's a rather large pet peeve of mine, when people confuse the two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I'm sorry. I was a little offended when you called me a liberal (twice), intimated that I wasn't smart enough to understand what you were writing, and then suggested that my claims of misunderstanding weren't credible.

:I probably should have held back the sarcasm but I've been sick lately (I slept for almost 30 straight hours Tues/Weds and had a high fever most of the time) and apparently don't have the restraint I usually do. I'll be going to bed soon; hopefully I'll be able to sleep off some more of this sickness and the grumpiness which comes with it. Good night. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:PS: Hopefully I'll get better by spring break; I'll have loads of free time for editing, and a lot of backed up class notes to convert to articles!

==I don't mean to be nosy==
Do you mind if I ask what school you go to? I know someone taking [[chemical engineering]] at Drexel, and it just sparked my interest when I saw you had the same major.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 20:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I go to [[Bucknell University]]. The logo's also on my user page :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==I can never get my head around it==

Why do people like you contribute here? I mean, people like you are honest, hardworking reliable persons who genuinely want to help out. But this place is little more than a hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays. Their Liberals and Homosexuality articles are the laughing stock of the Blogosphere. I'm a Moderately Conservative Blogger (I back mc Cain) and these ultra's make the rest of us look bad. Decent people like yourself are only an accessory to the broader betrayal of conservative principles, which these guys seem to parody every day with articles like [[Liberals and friendship]] or [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[Gay Bomb]]. Its absolutely amazing. [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:29, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not really sure how to take that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe he doesn't fixate on only a few articles and views the project as a whole. HelpJazz has been an invaluable contributor and doesn't feel he has to but heads on every small point he may not agree with. We can all find things we may not like, but there is always a great deal of improvement that can be made in other areas. To reduce our site to a few offending articles and ignore the rest is petty and is hardly something that a conservative blogger would do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::I ''do'' know how to take that! Thanks Learn together :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:53, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Learn Together,

:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].

In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.

McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.

Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Standing up to the gay rights movement? What are you standing up for? Really, put down Ann Coulter for a second and think for yourself.

Christ asks us not to look at the speck in our brothers eye when we haven't taken care of the plank in our own. This entire place is preachy, hypocritical and incredibly mean. Jesus would be weeping if he saw what his so called flock have produced.

Standing up to evil? Liberals are therefore evil? Homosexuals are therefore evil? And Liberals giving dictatorships a free pass... I'm sorry, where are you getting this nonsense? What is it that Bush said while campaigning in 2000 - 'I don't like going into another country and telling them how to do things our way' This was of course a response to the interventionist Gore, who advocated going into countries swarmed by civil strife. Clinton intervened in many countries (Though not enough in Rwanda) Read a book, ignoramus. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:"[[Think for yourself]]" is a [[liberal code word]] for "reject wisdom merely because it comes from another person". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:59, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And he ignores the rest... Typical tactic, ignore what someone else says, create new saying and somehow fit Liberal into every second sentance. Helpjazz, how can you continue to work with these people? [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 11:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't come here to argue or change minds. When I do interact with people, I do so in a kind and calm manner, instead of attacking that in which someone else believes. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Carter's mouth==

HJ, thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Negotiating_with_terrorists&diff=next&oldid=408189 permalink]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

IS there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 17:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not exactly. For general things you might try [[talk:Main Page]], or for a specific issue you might want to try a related debate or article. There isn't really an announcement board, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have done so and I would like you to direct as many people as possible to it cause I need opinions. I would like you to comment as well. [[Talk:No Mercy (2007)|Here you go]].--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 18:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Complaint, but then ... ==

HelpJazz, you complained about a lack of citations for [[abortion deceit]], but then did not help me fill in the citations. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:It wasn't a complaint as much as a comment. I've been in and out all day, since I'm on a school trip, and haven't had a lot of time to search. I'm generally not good at finding cites for those sorts of claims anyway :-/ I'll see if I can dig anything up now that I'm back for the night..
:In general, I find it best if the person who put in the claim puts in his own cites. You obviously know more about it and better know where to find cites, whereas I would be starting from scratch. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed he had because somebody had already removed him from the template itself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh I didn't even notice that he was removed from the template. I think he's more or less given up so it's an easy mistake to make. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

Thanks for this:
PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)
Quite true, and nicely phrased =)
I was thinking of changing some of that anyway, but it was night-time here. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== SofaZebra ==
Thank you thank you thank you.
Your's sincerely, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2008-03-30T16:27:01Z

HKing:

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Mockery

2008-03-30T16:15:51Z

HKing: Undo revision 417308 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

'''Mockery''' is a kind of [[jeer]]ing or showing [[contempt]] by [[derision]] or [[parody]], often in the form of a composition that creates a caricature of someone's style in a [[humor]]ous or [[satire|satirical]] way.

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in the thing being mocked. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. It is often used as a political tactic to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the [[United Nations]] about [[global warming]] are "in the pay of Big Oil" or saying scientists who believe in evolution are all atheists so their views can be discounted.

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcripts of the sort of error any [[politics|politician]] makes when replying too quickly to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.answers.com/topic/mockery a dictionary definition] ''Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.''

[[category:communication]]

User:HKing

2008-03-30T16:14:42Z

HKing: Stop. Think of the children.

Hello

Angel

2008-03-30T16:12:01Z

HKing: Undo revision 417302 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa) Where did you even GET that rubbish?

''This article is about the supernatural being. For the TV show, see [[Angel (TV Show)]]''

[[Image:Jajaja.jpg|right|thumb|The Archangel Michael by Guido Reni]]
According to Christian belief, '''Angels''' are the servants of [[God]]. Angels announce the word of God<ref>Luke 1:26-38</ref>, protect God's people<ref>Dan 6:22</ref>, and enforce God's will<ref>Matthew 13:41-42</ref>. Throughout the [[Bible]] there are mentions of people interacting with angels and of angels intervening on behalf of people.

Though the popular notion of an angel is that of a celestial, vaguely human being with improbably bird-like wings, the original word in [[Hebrew]] is best translated as "messenger"; thus, it is possible that many of the angels featuring in the [[Torah]] were meant to be mortal human beings doing God's work, rather than an actual supernatural manifestation ''per se.'' Of course this is not always the case such as when an angel calls to [[Hagar]] "from heaven".<ref>Genesis 21:17</ref>

Two angels are mentioned by name in the [[Bible]]: [[Michael the Archangel]] and [[Gabriel]]. [[Catholic]] and [[Orthodox Church|Orthodox]] tradition in the [[Book of Tobit]] also mentions [[Raphael (the angel)|Raphael]] by name.

In pictures angels are usually depicted as very beautiful creatures with golden hair, wings and long robes making them appear feminine. In contrast pictures depicting Michael the Archangel show him in armor usually crushing [[Satan]] beneath his feet.

According to early tradition, there are nine choirs of angels:
* Seraphim
* Cherubim
* Thrones
* Dominations
* Virtues
* Powers
* Principalities
* Archangels
* Angels

The different groups of these spirits are called choirs because it's said in the [[Bible]] they are constantly praising God in song.

==References==

''Reverend Francis J. Connel'', Baltimore Catechism #3, pg. 26
<references/>

[[category:Bible]]
[[category:Religion]]

Touch

2008-03-30T16:10:35Z

HKing: Undo revision 417299 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

'''Touch''' is one of the body's [[senses]], provided by the [[skin]]. We normally think of the sense of touch being only in the [[finger]]s, but most parts of the skin are capable of feeling and perceiving various elements of this sense.

Strictly, touch is part of the [[somatosensory system]] that perceives what we call "touch" or "[[pressure]]" including [[vibration]], [[temperature]] (warm or cold), [[pain]] (including [[itch]] and [[tickle]]), as well as [[proprioception]] (the sensations of [[muscle]] movement and joint position including posture), movement, [[face|facial]] expression and visceral senses (sensory information from within the body, such as [[stomach]] [[ache]]s).

Through a combination of these senses, generally using the fingers and arms, we are also able to perceive shape, softness, and texture.

Touch is important to [[blind]] people who typically use touch in combination with hearing to 'see' the shape of the world around them.

[[Category:Senses]]

Water

2008-03-30T16:07:51Z

HKing: Undo revision 417294 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

[[Water]] is one of the the most important [[chemical]] compounds because no living creature can survive without it. More than half of the weight of most organisms is due to water. <ref>"... a high fraction of the make up of an organism (50%) usually consists simply of liquid water" [http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:xD25WXmL1egJ:www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1015.htm+water+organisms+mass&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en Stephen T. Abedon, Ph.D.], Ohio State University</ref>

Water is an odorless, tasteless, colorless [[liquid]]. When people describe the [[flavor]] of water they are referring to impurities found in it (see [[mineral water]], [[bottled water]]).

The chemical formula for water is H2O, two [[hydrogen]] and one [[oxygen]] [[atom]].

The shape of the water [[molecule]] is a shallow V, with the oxygen in the middle and having an angle of approximately 105°. The interactions between the atoms result in the oxygen atom having a partly negative charge and the hydrogen atoms having a partly positive charge. Thus the water molecule is a strong electrical [[dipole]], which accounts for some of its properties.

Although we are accustomed to think of the word "solvent" in connection with [[organic]] solvents like gasoline or benzene, water is a powerful solvent, a fact that is sometimes overlooked because water is so familiar.

Water, compared to other compounds, has a number of unusual properties, such as expanding rather than contracting when it freezes. As noted by Lawrence Henderson in his 1913 book, ''The Fitness of the Environment,'' its ability to support life is directly related to some of these unusual properties.

*The normal boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit (gaseous state).
*The normal melting point of water if 32 degrees Fahrenheit (liquid state).
*Below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, water is normally in the solid state.

==See also==
*[[Humor:Dihydrogen monoxide|Dihydrogen monoxide]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:chemistry]]

Hat

2008-03-30T16:06:43Z

HKing: Undo revision 417293 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

{{stub}}

A hat is an article of clothing worn on the head.

Hats may be made of a variety of materials, incuding [[felt]], [[cloth]] and [[paper]].

[[Category:Clothing]]

Bill Clinton

2008-03-30T16:05:13Z

HKing: Undo revision 417291 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

{{President
|image=billclinton.jpg
|seq=42
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|vp=Al Gore
|previous=George H. W. Bush
|next=George W. Bush
|birth_date=August 19, 1946
|birth_place=Hope, Arkansas
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}
'''William Jefferson''' "Bill" '''Clinton''' '''(August 19, 1946 - present)''' served two terms as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2000, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

== Early Life ==

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 in Hope, [[Arkansas]]. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html</ref>

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing his stepfather to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house.<ref>http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50652</ref> After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabilitation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after receiving a prestigious [[Rhodes Scholarship]]. He also then earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973. At Yale he met [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html</ref>

== Early Political Career ==

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country at 32 years-old. Though defeated in 1980, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 and held it until becoming President in 1992.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]], 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governor and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.}}

===Early Scandals===
Clinton was known to have been involved in several scandals while Governor of Arkansas. He used Arkansas state policemen to arrange for him to meet women outside of marriage.

His close personal business partnerships with James and Susan McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture led to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but prosecutors were never able to charge the Clintons with a crime because Susan McDougall would not cooperate with investigators. Clinton later pardoned Susan McDougall for her role in the Whitewater affair.{{fact}}

== Presidency==
[[Image:Somalia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Poster to end the "[[racist]] occupation of Somalia"; eighteen US soldiers were killed and some of their bodies were dragged through the streets.<ref>[http://www.netnomad.com/fineman.html The Oil Factor in Somalia]: Four American [[Big Oil|Petroleum Giants]] had Agreements with the African Nation before its Civil War began. They could reap big rewards if peace is restored. By Mark Fineman, ''Times Mirror Company'', January 18, 1993.</ref>]]
Clinton won in the [[United States presidential election of 1992]] with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush]]'s 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases; third candidate Ross Perot managed 19%.

In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, popular outcry against Clinton's [[radical]] health-care "reform" scheme led to failure of the plan. The collapse of the Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier made [[socialism]] unpopular and was credited for the widespread disillusionment with the proposal. The approach consisted of appointing secret members to an [[economic planning|planning committee]] to reshape this important sector of the economy.{{fact}} The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular that after two years, the Democratic-controlled Congress shielded its committee members' records by never bringing it to the floor for a vote.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of several decades of Democratic control of Congress by giving a victory to Republicans. This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.{{fact}} These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html</ref> This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings.<ref>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG</ref>

In 1994 a [[Pentagon]] researcher in the Clinton Administration requested funding to develop a non-lethal "love bomb" that would chemically alter the state of mind of [[enemy combatant]]s and make them want to have sex with each other rather than fight.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281217,00.html Air Force Considered Gay 'Love Bomb' Against Enemies], ''Fox'', June 12, 2007.</ref>

In late 1995, President Clinton dispatched some 20,000 U.S. troops to [[Bosnia]].

Clinton was known for his positive and outspoken tolerance of [[homosexuality]]. <ref>[http://www.behindthebadge.net/articles/a105.html]</ref>

==1996==

Clinton was reelected in the [[United States presidential election of 1996]] and carried 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. During Clinton's second term, together with the Republican-controlled Congress, he produced record federal budget surpluses reaching $236 billion by the year 2000, and representing a net federal budget gain of $526 billion.<ref>[http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Congressional Budget Office figures]</ref>

He spent much of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor's report was not released until well into Clinton's second term, and brought documented evidence of Clinton giving false testimony in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit while President which resulted in his impeachment and disbarment from the legal profession.{{fact}} The main charge was that he had committed perjury in a civil suit. The perjured testimony directly related to an attempt to defraud the plaintiff of damages. The Senate failed to make clear what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.<ref>[http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/lieberman.shtml Statement by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)], Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.</ref>

In 1998 the [[Good Friday Agreement]] was signed between Northern Ireland's Nationalist and Unionist parties and the British and Irish governments. Clinton took part in brokering the deal, phoning the participants in negotiations, at Senator Mitchel's behest, and hosted Unionist and Nationalist leaders at the White House.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/10/nclinton.ireland.api/]</ref>

===al-Qaeda bombing===

During Clinton's presidency the [[terrorist]] group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Terrorist leader [[Osama bin Laden]]<ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998.</ref> issued two public [[fatwa]]s declaring War on America.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> In the 1998 fatwa <ref>Bernard Lewis, [http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/read-325-3.htm#Lewis License to Kill], Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998.</ref> bin Laden told ''[[Jihad|jihadist]]s'' worldwide,
{{Cquote|Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by [[Allah]] and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, [[Aden]] and [[Mogadishu]].<ref>[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097mohamedinterview&scale=0#a1097mohamedinterview October 1997: [[Ali Mohamed]] Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action]</ref>}}

Bin Laden told ''ABC News'' at the time, "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets." <ref>The 9-11 Commission Report, [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf2. The Foundation of the New Terrorism], Official Government Edition, GPO, 2004.</ref>
===Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls===
Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occasions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks<ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998.</ref> were launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,
{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998.</ref>}}

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. Portions regarding civil rights remedies were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest of any modern president, and remains the only modern president to leave office with a higher approval rating than he had when he took office.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm Presidential Approval Ratings]</ref>

===Impeachment===
On Aug. 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of White House intern [[Monica Lewinsky]]'s upcoming testimony regarding her extramarital affair with the President, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having misled the public and a Federal Court over keys elements of testimony. [[Kenneth Starr]], a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the case, was instructed to pursue the matter.

In the second term Clinton was accused of perjury in connection to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Clinton adviser and close confidant [[George Stephanopoulos]] said publicly that there would be a "scorched-earth policy" if Clinton were impeached.<ref>[http://www.alamo-girl.com/02742.htm Insight Magazine], J Michael Waller, 6/19/00.</ref> Clinton previously had decried the "politics of personal destruction."<ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/weekly/standard072299.asp Bill Clinton, Historian], Peter Wehner, Jewish World Review July 22, 1999.</ref>

During the impeachment trial, pornographer [[Larry Flynt]], an old friend of Clinton advisers [[James Carville]] and [[Strobe Talbott]], publicly offered a $1 million reward for any information about the personal lives of members of Congress that could be used for the purposes of blackmail. Although a majority of 55 Senators voted to convict, a minority of 45 Senators gained his acquittal, a two thirds majority being necessary to remove him from office.

[[David Gergen]], former White House Communications Director for both Presidents Reagan and Clinton, summarized the sentiments of many regarding the President's conduct:
{{Cquote|The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them....when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it...You don't foul the nest."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm In Washington, That Letdown Feeling], By Sally Quinn, ''The Washington Post'', November 2, 1998, Page E01</ref>}}

Clinton lost his law license in Arkansas because he had committed perjury before a Federal judge.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm</ref>

===Terrorist pardons===

On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. rtetrieve from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref>

== Legacy ==

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. She was reelected in 2006. While his wife is now seeking financial donations for the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|Democratic presidential nomination in 2008]] may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence, according to WorldNetDaily, for receiving $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign in illegal donations,<ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Bill Clinton has refused to make known the identities of financial donors to his Presidential library.<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-libary-.html Clinton Library Donors Remain Secret], [[ABC News]], September 27, 2007.</ref>

==Involvement in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign==

Clinton has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives for his actions in his wife's presidential campaign. [[Time Magazine]], hardly a conservative source, referred to him as "his wife's attack dog". <ref>http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2008/01/28/OpEd/Editorial.On.The.Campaign.Trail.Bill.Clinton.Should.Keep.His.Mouth.Shut-3171498.shtml</ref> Some accused him of racism for comparing [[Barack Obama]] to [[Jesse Jackson]] when Bill Clinton commented on the campaign trail in [[South Carolina]] in 2008: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." <ref>http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/jesse_jackson_barack_obama_wha.php</ref> Time Magazine further editorialized that he had broken his strong bond with the African-American community in the process of campaigning. <ref>Time Magazine, February 4, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]]
*[[Gay Bomb]]

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

==External link==

*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=625 No evidence of genocide or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo], by Rollie Keith, Global Research, July 2, 2005.
*[http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/germandocs.htm Internal Documents from Germany's Foreign Office Regarding Pre-Bombardment Genocide in Kosovo].

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Hebrews

2008-03-30T16:04:05Z

HKing: Undo revision 417289 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

The '''Hebrews''' were [[God]]'s chosen people. They were the ancestors of the [[Israelites]], who would eventually fulfill the Promise of entering the promised land that God had given to them in covenant with [[Abraham]] and later with [[Jacob]]. The term was usually used to denote a group based on ethnicity, whereas more modern usage of [[Jew]]s blurs [[ethnicity]] and [[religion]]. The Hebrews were expected to follow God as children of the Promise. The term is usually used in the [[Bible]] before there was a nation of Israel. It is a common usage in the [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]]<ref>Exodus 3:18</ref><ref>Exodus 5:3</ref><ref>Exodus 7:16</ref><ref>Exodus 9:1</ref> in the [[Old Testament]] to describe the descendants of [[Jacob]] who were put under bondage in [[Egypt]].

== See also ==

*[[Judaism]]

==References==

<References/>

[[category:Bible]]

Banana

2008-03-30T16:03:08Z

HKing: Undo revision 417286 by Special:Contributions/ZebraSofa (User talk:ZebraSofa)

[[Image:Bananas2.jpg|thumb|right|150px|A cluster of Cavendish bananas]]
A '''banana''' is a [[herbaceous]] cultagenic [[plant]] of the genus ''musa''. Bananas are a tropical fruit from the kingdom ''Plantae,'' the division ''Magnoliophyta,'' the class ''Liliopsida,'' and the order ''zingiberales''

[[Category:Fruits]]