Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jim Bakker

2007-04-15T17:22:12Z

Hektor: New page: '''Jim Bakker''', born James Orsen, was an American televangelist. Bakker and his then-wife, Tammy Faye, were famous for hosting the PTL Club (alte...

'''Jim Bakker''', born James Orsen, was an [[America| American]] televangelist.

Bakker and his then-wife, [[Tammy Faye Bakker| Tammy Faye]], were famous for hosting the [[PTL Club]] (alternately standing for Praise The Lord and People That Love) and later for heading up the PTL Network. At the show's height, it was being carried by close to one hundred stations and boasted over twelve million viewers. The Bakkers were also instrumental in the building of [[Heritage USA]], the now-defunct Christian theme park in [[North Carolina]].

Outside of religious circles, however, Bakker may be best known for his meteoric fall from grace. Bakker was accused of offering a $265,000 bribe to a secretary in the ministry to cover up their adulterous affair. He was also tried and convicted on charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering, stemming from his involvement in several illegal financial transactions during the construction of Heritage USA.<ref>[http://www.rickross.com/groups/bakker.html Rick Ross Institute: Information on PTL Club]</ref>

Following the scandal, Bakker was the subject of intense backlash in the Christian broadcasting community, with [[Jerry Falwell]] calling PTL a "religious soap opera" and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] calling Bakker "a cancer in the body of Christ." (Many commentators have noted the irony in this statement, as Swaggart himself was later defrocked for his alleged extramarital engagements with a prostitute.){{fact}} Nevertheless, following his parole for good behavior in 1993, Bakker has been able to find forgiveness in the Christian community. He has published an autobiography entitled ''I Was Wrong'', and in 2003, he began broadcasting again with ''The New Jim Bakker Show''<ref>[http://www.nndb.com/people/061/000023989/ NNDB: Jim Bakker]</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?

2007-04-14T04:26:41Z

Hektor:

The Home School movement, definitely.

The home school movement provides parents the responsibility and wonderful opportunity to educate and enrich their children's minds. I go to classes where we study Logic, Latin, and read college books. I have been home schooled for four years and I went to a private school for five years. Home schooling has provided me with enormous amounts of extra-curricular and social activities, as well as academic privileges. Home schoolers '''do''' have a social life, contrary to what the liberals will have you believe. Actually, home-schoolers are more eloquent and insightful in their writing and speech. I am in a home school speech and debate club and I see home schoolers who are speaking with the clarity of . me to any speech and debate tournaments and you will see for yourself. I encourage you to home school your child for it will be one of the best things you can ever do for your child.

: Too bad not everyone can afford the time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Strictly from personal experience, a homeschool environment is fertile ground for brainwashing, and usually of the conservative religious bent as well. Public school, for all its flaws, at least exposes students to a far more diverse environment than the other options.
--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Public School ==
Public school is necessary for those who can't afford private school and don't have the time for home school.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Existentialism

2007-04-14T03:54:40Z

Hektor: fixed a link

Existentialism is both a broad philosophical movement and a cultural movement.

==Philosophical Movement==
The earliest existentialists were the devout Christian [[Soren Kierkegaard]] and the vocal atheist [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]. The movement did not, however, develop its name or popularity until the 20th century when it was popularized by a number of thinkers—ranging from the atheist [[Jean Paul Sartre]] to the Jewish thinker Marten Buber. <ref>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/]</ref>
At its core, existentialism seeks to understand what it means to be human. For some existentialists, the answer is to be found in giving ourselves totally to God, for others the answer is that we must make our own meaning in the world. There is, to date, no agreement among existentialists as to which of these answers is correct, but academic debate remains vigorous. <ref>Existentialism Today[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#5]</ref>

==Cultural Movement==
Information Needed, please add and edit
==Reference==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Capitalism

2007-04-14T03:50:52Z

Hektor:

'''Capitalism''', also called '''free market economy''' is an economic system based upon private enterprise and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined through the operation of a a market where all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary rather than regulated and mandated by government.

Since the fall of [[communism]], and the advent of information technology, capitalism is becoming increasingly popular.

Critics of capitalism, most famously [[Germany| German]] [[philosophy| philosopher]] [[Karl Marx]], have argued that the system is dehumanizing to the working class and poor.

==External links==
*[http://www.capmag.com Capitalism Magazine]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-04-09T02:22:08Z

Hektor:

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Jerry Falwell

2007-04-09T02:13:59Z

Hektor: added info about his alleged connection to Unification Church

'''Jerry Falwell''' is a politically active [[United States|American]] evangelical.

Falwell is well known outside of Evangelical circles for his claim, made on "The 700 Club" on September 13th of 2001 that it was not just [[al Qaeda]] that was to blame for the terrorist attacks of [[9/11]]. He said, ""I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" In the uproar that followed Falwell issued an ambiguous retraction<ref>CNN article on the statement[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]</ref> that left many unsatisfied{{fact}}.

==Scandals==

Falwell, like his friend and fellow evangelical [[Pat Robertson]], is known for making controversial statements, and has been accused of being party to a less-than-reputable business transaction with the head of the [[Unification Church]], Reverend [[Sun Myung Moon]]. Falwell had been a long-time critic of Moon, comparing to "the plague"<ref>[http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/sun-myung-moon/ RL Entry: Sun Myung Moon]</ref>. But critics point out that Falwell's harsh opinion of Moon softened considerably after Moon made a $3.5 million donation to Falwell's [[Liberty College]] in a time of serious financial troubles, with Falwell making a public appeal for President [[Ronald Regean]] to pardon Moon after he was sent to prison for tax evasion<ref>[http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/ RL Entry: Jerry Falwell]</ref>.

==Reference==

<references/>

Pat Robertson

2007-04-07T23:28:52Z

Hektor: Formatting, added info on his 2007 prediction

'''Pat Robertson''' is an American evangelist, spiritual leader and political leader, also owner and presenter of the TV show ''The 700 Club''. He is known for many highly controversial statements, frequently made on this program.

==Controversial Quotes==

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991</ref>

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."<ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref>

"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."<ref>Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On.</ref>

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992</ref>

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993</ref>

"I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982</ref>

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992</ref>

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."<ref>Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.</ref>

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."<ref>Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986</ref>

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?"<ref>Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227</ref>

In late 2006, Robertson claimed to be able to leg press over 2000 lbs as a result of his taking a herbal supplement. He subsequently threatened a promoter of this same supplement with a 'beating' as a result of a disagreement. It should be noted that Robertson never actually carried out this threat nor publicly demonstrated his unusual strength. {{fact}}

==Predictions==

Robertson has a habit of making predictions for the new year on his television show. For 2007, Robertson has predicted a "mass killing" at the end of the year. "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear. The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/03/pat_robertson_predicts_mass_killing/ Pat Robertson predicts 'mass killing', Boston Globe]</ref>

It remains to be seen whether Robertson's prophecy will be validated.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Robertson, Pat}}
[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-04-06T14:21:07Z

Hektor:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Moved by her Christian faith ==

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as [[Jesus]] said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who '''''is''''' misled '''''feels''''' misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, opposing special legal rights group is not "hate" and does not mean one supports discrimination against that group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, opposing equal rights is hate.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one am doubtful Bryant was motivated by any benevolent urge to "soul-save" when she was campaigning against homosexuality. One need only look at her own words:

- "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children."
- "I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother, I must protect my children from their evil influence."

To me, it seems as though Bryant was more concerned about "protecting" children than saving anyone's soul. And for that matter, I think this article is a little heavy on the "gays-and-liberal-media-ruined-her-career" rhetoric. I think there also needs to be a discussion of how even fellow Christians abandoned Bryant when she became divorced. That lack of support was just as vital to her fall from grace as the gay rights movement she unintentionally helped revive.--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Category==
Since this page is locked, can someone please add [[Category|Women]] (the category) to it? Thanks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hatred is bad ==

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"'''Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa."'''
Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I think the video has a date, no?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== early? ==
In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The [[Homosexual Agenda]] is a fairly recent event, of which I believe it is fair to say that Bryant was an early opponent. I remember reading that she was also a segregationist - I would research this more but the article is currently locked so I won't be able to add anything until this changes. Is there any way a lock can be imposed only for non-registered users? [[User:ATB|ATB]] 21:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Gee, I don't know. Think maybe she was a member of the KKK? Really, that's ridiculous to try to smear someone because you disagree with her position on the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I quite agree with her position on the homosexual agenda, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments in any other fashion. I was simply mentioning that it might be notable - especially on this socially conservative encyclopedia - to make note of her pro-white positions. Some preliminary research garnered a 70s article which stated that "in her interpretation of the Bible, Jews, Moslems, Pygmies and Eskimos are going to hell." This isn't Wikipedia; we can say what we want. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 23:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Natural Consequences of Free Speech on the Free Market ==

When the Dixie Chicks - up to that point fairly popular country singers - foolishly angered one of their largest fan bases by criticizing President Bush, they were summarily "fired" by many people. It is perfectly all right for anyone to refuse to continue giving money to an entertainer who, for whatever reason, no longer entertains them. 
So when a perfectly legal - and perfectly justified - boycott was called "censorship" by those who thought Natalie Maines and crew were being treated unfairly, I found the situation quite laughable. In contrast to the Chicks' refusal to play by the rules of the entertainment market (please the fans), other singers and entertainers who may have controversial political views have remained silent. Others have even gained commercial success by mirroring the views of their target audience (for instance, Toby Keith). The Dixie Chicks suffered the natural consequences of Natalie's big mouth, and have no one but themselves to blame for failing to recognize demographic facts about their fan base. 
In the case of Anita Bryant, we similarly saw a fairly popular singer take on a view that is and was by all accounts controversial. She has, however, no right to my money, or your money, unless you or I are satisfied with her product. So she spoke her mind, and was then predictably lambasted by the media and many sectors of the public. She had every right to do so, and it was certainly very rude of protesters to violate her person by assault via pie. But she has no right to any success, or money, unless she pleases those who will give it to her. Her only real complaint could be that a company that pulls sponsorship might be making a bad business decision: but so what? It is theirs to make, and who is she to criticize the autonomous decision of a company that must answer to the public's economic decisions? If a sponsor predicts that the controversy will hurt sales, why ought they ''not'' respond by distancing themselves from it? Their duties are to their shareholders, not to Ms. Bryant or her political/religious/moral views. 
That's the way the free market works. Bryant may be right or wrong (I myself am disinclined to agree with many of her stated views), but she is merely an entertainer-turned-social-activist, like so many Hollywood stars. I'm not in the slightest concerned by what Madonna, or Anita Bryant, think about a very complicated moral question.--[[User:Philosophe|Philosophe]] 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-04-06T14:20:25Z

Hektor:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Moved by her Christian faith ==

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as [[Jesus]] said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who '''''is''''' misled '''''feels''''' misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, opposing special legal rights group is not "hate" and does not mean one supports discrimination against that group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, opposing equal rights is hate.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one am doubtful Bryant was motivated by any benevolent urge to "soul-save" when she was campaigning against homosexuality. One need only look at her own words:

- "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children."
- "I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother, I must protect my children from their evil influence."

To me, it seems as though Bryant was more concerned about "protecting" children than saving anyone's soul. And for that matter, I think this article is a little heavy on the "gays-and-liberal-media-ruined-her-career" rhetoric. I think there also needs to be a discussion of how even fellow Christians abandoned Bryant when she became divorced. That lack of support was just as vital to her fall from grace as the gay rights movement she unintentionally helped revive.

==Category==
Since this page is locked, can someone please add [[Category|Women]] (the category) to it? Thanks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hatred is bad ==

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"'''Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa."'''
Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I think the video has a date, no?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== early? ==
In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The [[Homosexual Agenda]] is a fairly recent event, of which I believe it is fair to say that Bryant was an early opponent. I remember reading that she was also a segregationist - I would research this more but the article is currently locked so I won't be able to add anything until this changes. Is there any way a lock can be imposed only for non-registered users? [[User:ATB|ATB]] 21:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Gee, I don't know. Think maybe she was a member of the KKK? Really, that's ridiculous to try to smear someone because you disagree with her position on the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I quite agree with her position on the homosexual agenda, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments in any other fashion. I was simply mentioning that it might be notable - especially on this socially conservative encyclopedia - to make note of her pro-white positions. Some preliminary research garnered a 70s article which stated that "in her interpretation of the Bible, Jews, Moslems, Pygmies and Eskimos are going to hell." This isn't Wikipedia; we can say what we want. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 23:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Natural Consequences of Free Speech on the Free Market ==

When the Dixie Chicks - up to that point fairly popular country singers - foolishly angered one of their largest fan bases by criticizing President Bush, they were summarily "fired" by many people. It is perfectly all right for anyone to refuse to continue giving money to an entertainer who, for whatever reason, no longer entertains them. 
So when a perfectly legal - and perfectly justified - boycott was called "censorship" by those who thought Natalie Maines and crew were being treated unfairly, I found the situation quite laughable. In contrast to the Chicks' refusal to play by the rules of the entertainment market (please the fans), other singers and entertainers who may have controversial political views have remained silent. Others have even gained commercial success by mirroring the views of their target audience (for instance, Toby Keith). The Dixie Chicks suffered the natural consequences of Natalie's big mouth, and have no one but themselves to blame for failing to recognize demographic facts about their fan base. 
In the case of Anita Bryant, we similarly saw a fairly popular singer take on a view that is and was by all accounts controversial. She has, however, no right to my money, or your money, unless you or I are satisfied with her product. So she spoke her mind, and was then predictably lambasted by the media and many sectors of the public. She had every right to do so, and it was certainly very rude of protesters to violate her person by assault via pie. But she has no right to any success, or money, unless she pleases those who will give it to her. Her only real complaint could be that a company that pulls sponsorship might be making a bad business decision: but so what? It is theirs to make, and who is she to criticize the autonomous decision of a company that must answer to the public's economic decisions? If a sponsor predicts that the controversy will hurt sales, why ought they ''not'' respond by distancing themselves from it? Their duties are to their shareholders, not to Ms. Bryant or her political/religious/moral views. 
That's the way the free market works. Bryant may be right or wrong (I myself am disinclined to agree with many of her stated views), but she is merely an entertainer-turned-social-activist, like so many Hollywood stars. I'm not in the slightest concerned by what Madonna, or Anita Bryant, think about a very complicated moral question.--[[User:Philosophe|Philosophe]] 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:James Dobson

2007-04-06T03:56:11Z

Hektor: New page: I'm confused by this article. It claims that FOTF supports "traditional Christian values" and the "American family" without bothering to explain what they are - and indeed, who decides wh...

I'm confused by this article. It claims that FOTF supports "traditional Christian values" and the "American family" without bothering to explain what they are - and indeed, who decides what they are. Are they trying to imply that whatever FOTF decides is traditional Christian values/the "normal" make-up of the American family? That's a scary thought.

Rick Santorum

2007-04-06T00:29:38Z

Hektor: added info on NWS debate

[[Image:SantorumConcedes.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Rick Santorum and his family announcing his concession in the 2006 election.]]
Rick Santorum served as [[United States]] Senator from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his staunchly conservative political views. For instance, he has held that [[Intelligent Design]] ought to be taught along side [[evolution]] in public school classrooms. Claims by [[liberals]] that he was out of the mainstream appeared to have been validated in 2006, when [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor, defeated Santorum by capturing 59% of the popular vote for U.S. Senator. Unfortunately for Santorum, his 2006 reelection bid was one case study of many in which ideologues must come to terms with the fact that the majority of Americans are moderates.

==Santorum and the National Weather Service Debacle==

In 2005, Santorum made a failed bid to pass legislation that would have limited the information the [[National Weather Service]] could provide to the public, with the intention of promoting the [[Pennsylvania]]-based firm [[AccuWeather]]<ref>[http://www.nndb.com/people/035/000025957/ Notable Names Database: Rick Santorum]</ref>. Though the bill died in comittee, [[Hurricane Katrina]] devastated [[New Orleans]] later that year, and Santorum resumed his criticism of the NWS, saying that the organization gave New Orleans residents "no warning, or not sufficient warning" about the brutal potential of the storm. The NWS countered these claims, saying that they had been warning of widespread devastation as early August 26, and cited an Urgent Weather Bulletin issued for New Orleans on August 28 that predicted in unusually vivid language and with remarkable accuracy the extent of the potential damage:

<nowiki>"EXTREMELY DANGEROUS HURRICANE KATRINA CONTINUES TO APPROACH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA... DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED... MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER... PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK [by flying debris]... WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS."</nowiki><ref>[http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/warn_archive/LIX/NPW/0828_214001.txt NWS Urgent Weather Bulletin August 28, 2005]</ref>

Santorum nevertheless stood his ground, saying "I continue to believe that we need a robust National Weather Service that is focused on its core mission and committed to getting it right."<ref>[http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05253/569133.stm Santorum Criticizes Weather Service, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Political people]]

Piltdown Man

2007-04-04T18:29:10Z

Hektor: minor addendum to previous edit.

The Piltdown Man was one of many frauds perpetrated by promoters of the theory of evolution. This particular fraud was taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953, when it was conclusively proven to be a hoax. The Piltdown Man was featured in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in Tennessee. Darwinists officially announced the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni''. This name honored the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. It is worth noting that while the British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man, this was not true in America and Europe, though it was taught in American schools.[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html]

[[Image:piltdownman_quennell_1922.png|right|300px|"Piltdown Man", according to evolutionists in 1922.]]

Creationists believe that the Piltdown man was not an isolated incident of bad judgement by evolutionist and that the examples of the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Ocre Man, and Neanderthals can be cited. <ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html "Evolution Fraud"], Northwest Creation Network</ref> However, this statement ignores the fact that many evolutionists were more than happy to see Piltdown man leave the pantheon of evolutionary ancestors, as they viewed it as an anomaly which did not fit in with the rest of their research<ref>[http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/piltdown-man/ RL Entry: Piltdown Man]</ref>.

The Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. The bones were stained with chromic acid and an iron solution, creating the crude appearance of an old age. The Piltdown Man was publicized as the "Missing Link" between man and ape-like species, which eluded (and still eludes) promoters of evolution. {{fact}}

The date assigned to the bones was never based on the bones at all, but rather were based on testing of older material found nearby. {{fact}} This is partially due to the fact that modern dating techniques, like the [[Fluorine Absorption test]], were not yet invented (and indeed, when they were, proved essential to Piltdown man's downfall<ref>[http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nweur_2006_1_1.pdf Annotated Biblography of the Piltdown Man Forgery]</ref>). Like similar artifacts purporting to prove evolution today, there was no independent or public scrutiny of the actual materials.{{fact}}

Doubts about the veracity of the Piltdown man remains can be found as early as 1922 for instance, when evolutionist William King Gregory stated in a highly technical book<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03040525&id=EyF3qtMDRlgC&pg=RA2-PA351 ''The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition''], William King Gregory, 1922, p. 351.</ref> that as early as 1914 he had doubts, shared by colleagues, about whether the jaw and teeth were associated with the braincase. That same year, a book aimed at the popular market was depicting elaborate fabrications about the daily life of Piltdown Man, giving him an assortment of tools, a wife and child, and tigers to fight.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref> Yet the Piltdown Man continued to be taught children in school, as in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].

In 1950 it was shown by the fluorine method of relative dating that the Piltdown mandible and cranial bones were considerably younger geologically than the Lower and Middle Pleistocene fossils said to have been found at the same site.<ref>[http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/radioactivedating_piltdown.html]</ref> It is still not conclusively known who was behind the forgery.

== External Links ==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp The Piltdown Man Fraud by Dr A J Monty White]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Articles needing major improvement]]
[[Category: Evolution]]

Piltdown Man

2007-04-04T12:09:46Z

Hektor: Added info & changed to a more neutral tone

The Piltdown Man was one of many frauds perpetrated by promoters of the theory of evolution. This particular fraud was taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953, when it was conclusively proven to be a hoax. The Piltdown Man was featured in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in Tennessee. Darwinists officially announced the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni''. This name honored the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. It is worth noting that while the British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man, this was not true in America and Europe, though it was taught in American schools.[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html]

[[Image:piltdownman_quennell_1922.png|right|300px|"Piltdown Man", according to evolutionists in 1922.]]

Creationists believe that the Piltdown man was not an isolated incident of bad judgement by evolutionist and that the examples of the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Ocre Man, and Neanderthals can be cited. <ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html "Evolution Fraud"], Northwest Creation Network</ref> However, this statement ignores the fact that many evolutionists were more than happy to see Piltdown man leave the pantheon of evolutionary ancestors, as they viewed it as an anomaly which did not fit in with the rest of their research<ref>[http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/piltdown-man/ RL Entry: Piltdown Man]</ref>.

The Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. The bones were stained with chromic acid and an iron solution, creating the crude appearance of an old age. The Piltdown Man was publicized as the "Missing Link" between man and ape-like species, which eluded (and still eludes) promoters of evolution. {{fact}}

The date assigned to the bones was never based on the bones at all, but rather were based on testing of older material found nearby. {{fact}} This is partially due to the fact that modern dating techniques, like the [[Fluorine Absorption test]], were not yet invented (and indeed, when they were, proved essential to Piltdown man's downfall<ref>[http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nweur_2006_1_1.pdf Annotated Biblography of the Piltdown Man Forgery]</ref>). Like similar artifacts purporting to prove evolution today, there was no independent or public scrutiny of the actual materials.{{fact}}

Doubts about the veracity of the Piltdown man remains can be found as early as 1922 for instance, when evolutionist William King Gregory stated in a highly technical book<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03040525&id=EyF3qtMDRlgC&pg=RA2-PA351 ''The Origin and Evolution of the Human Dentition''], William King Gregory, 1922, p. 351.</ref> that as early as 1914 he had doubts, shared by colleagues, about whether the jaw and teeth were associated with the braincase. That same year, a book aimed at the popular market was depicting elaborate fabrications about the daily life of Piltdown Man, giving him an assortment of tools, a wife and child, and tigers to fight.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref> Yet the Piltdown Man continued to be taught children in school, as in the textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].

In 1950 it was shown by the fluorine method of relative dating that the Piltdown mandible and cranial bones were considerably younger geologically than the Lower and Middle Pleistocene fossils said to have been found at the same site.<ref>[http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/radioactivedating_piltdown.html]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp The Piltdown Man Fraud by Dr A J Monty White]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Articles needing major improvement]]
[[Category: Evolution]]

Bill Frist

2007-03-31T22:41:40Z

Hektor: picture formatting

'''William Harrison "Bill" Frist, Sr.''' is a physician and former [[United States Senator]] from Tennessee.
[[Image:Frist_head.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Former U.S. Senator [[Bill Frist]].]]

Talk:Dalton Trumbo

2007-03-30T13:54:30Z

Hektor: New page: Thanks. This article is so much more neutral and factual now that it's all about Communist infiltration.

Thanks. This article is so much more neutral and factual now that it's all about Communist infiltration.

Dalton Trumbo

2007-03-30T05:12:48Z

Hektor: New page: '''Dalton Trumbo''' (1905-1976) was an American screenwriter and author. ==Johnny Got His Gun and HUAC== His most famous work is perhaps ''Johnny Got His Gun'', a bitterly a...

'''Dalton Trumbo''' (1905-1976) was an [[America| American]] screenwriter and author.

==Johnny Got His Gun and HUAC==

His most famous work is perhaps ''Johnny Got His Gun'', a bitterly anti-war novel that won him the National Book Sellers Award in 1939. The book follows the thoughts of a young [[World War I]] American infantryman who becomes a quadruple amputee, as well as deaf, mute, and blind. Having no way to communicate with the outside world, the main character spends most of the book reminiscing about his life and meditating on the futility of [[war]]. The book was released in 1939, shortly before the [[Germany| German]] invasion of [[Poland]]. Perhaps as a result, the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] callied him to testify on his alleged [[Communist]] sympathies, in spite of the fact that Trumbo himself had ordered production of the book halted after the start of the war.

As Trumbo refused to give any information, Trumbo and ten other Hollywood writers (the [[Hollywood Ten]]) were [[blacklist| blacklisted]], and Trumbo spent 11 months in prison.

User talk:Flyntz

2007-03-30T02:43:07Z

Hektor:

Flyntz, please abide by the [[rules]]. Your highly opinionated entry on [[Rick Santorum]] violates them. Repeated violations will result in blocking your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree with Aschlafly. The only change between Flyntz's entry and the current one is use of the word "crushing" - and as a follower of Santorum's 2006 reelection bid, his defeat can hardly be accurately described as anything but "crushing." Flyntz was justified in his use of the phrase.

Rick Santorum

2007-03-30T02:40:04Z

Hektor: Added picture

Rick Santorum served as [[United States]] Senator from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his staunchly conservative political views. For instance, he has held that [[Intelligent Design]] ought to be taught along side [[evolution]] in public school classrooms. Claims by [[liberals]] that he was out of the mainstream appeared to have been validated in 2006, when [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor, defeated Santorum by capturing 59% of the popular vote for U.S. Senator. Unfortunately for Santorum, his 2006 reelection bid was one case study of many in which ideologues must come to terms with the fact that the majority of Americans are moderates.

[[Image:SantorumConcedes.jpg]]
''Rick Santorum and his family announcing his concession in the 2006 election.''

[[category:biographies]]

Rick Santorum

2007-03-30T02:38:37Z

Hektor:

Abomination

2007-03-24T19:40:19Z

Hektor: added info about the term's application to ongoing legal debates

An abomination is anything associated with the worship of false gods or any activity that perverts the way God intended human beings to live and behave. A list of such behaviors may be found in Leviticus 18. Such [[evil]] occurred in [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] so [[God]] sent the [[Great Flood]] as punishment.

The vagueness of its definition, combined with debates over its validity as a legal argument in Unites States law (considering the laws would equally apply to non-Christians) has led to numerous problems in recent years<ref>[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=142 Stem Cell Research at Debatabase]</ref><ref>[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=63 Gay Marriage at Debatabase]</ref><ref>[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=30 Abortion at Debatabase]</ref><ref>[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=186 Creationism vs. Evolution at Debatabase]</ref><ref>[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=174 Prayer in School at Debatabase]</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Abominations]]

Liberal bias

2007-03-23T03:22:12Z

Hektor: Oops.

{{stub}}
The following persons, television programs or media outlets have frequently been said to express a well known liberal bias.
* ''[[The New York Times]]''
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]]
* [[Dan Rather]]<ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''?

Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]{{fact}}
* [[LA Times]]{{fact}}
* [[Michael Moore]]
* The [[Daily Show]]
* Real Time with Bill Maher
* The [[United Nations]]{{fact}}
* [[Washington Post]]{{fact}}
* [[Hollywood]]{{fact}}
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[Communism for dummies| Communism for Dummies]]
* [[Liberals]]

CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding."<ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

He also suggested that liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..."<ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Liberal bias

2007-03-23T03:21:40Z

Hektor: added CfD to list

{{stub}}
The following persons, television programs or media outlets have frequently been said to express a well known liberal bias.
* ''[[The New York Times]]''
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]]
* [[Dan Rather]]<ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''?

Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]{{fact}}
* [[LA Times]]{{fact}}
* [[Michael Moore]]
* The [[Daily Show]]
* Real Time with Bill Maher
* The [[United Nations]]{{fact}}
* [[Washington Post]]{{fact}}
* [[Hollywood]]{{fact}}
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[Communism for Dummies]]
* [[Liberals]]

CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding."<ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

He also suggested that liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..."<ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Homo sapiens

2007-03-23T03:20:12Z

Hektor: See also Misanthropy

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species, Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes). Humans have possibly been around for between 6,000 and 200,000 years. Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now inhabit every continent except Antarctica, with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

== The Origins of Man in Religion and Mythology ==
Among Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that Homo Sapiens [[Creationism|were created]] in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of creation per [[Genesis]] 1:26-31:

==See Also==

[[Misanthropy]]

[[Category:Mammals]]

Jack Chick

2007-03-23T02:59:08Z

Hektor: New page: '''Jack Chick''' is an American Evangelical Christian cartoonist. His works are featured in "Chick Tracts," inexpensive comic books designed to be left in public places an...

'''Jack Chick''' is an [[American]] [[Evangelical]] [[Christian]] cartoonist.

His works are featured in "Chick Tracts," inexpensive [[comic books]] designed to be left in public places and to reach out to unsaved souls who might be passing by. A major theme in his tracts are emotionally wrought protrayals of [[God| God's]] perfect love for his children alongside somewhat more violent images, like [[homosexuality| homosexuals]] writhing in agony while being burned alive in the streets of [[Sodom and Gomorrah]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp</ref>.

[[Image:http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7760/sodomrf6.jpg]]

Critics have argues that Chick's tracts are heavy-handed, clumsy morality tales whose reliance on stereotypes and faulty logic to make points is not nearly as odious as his flair for the overdramatic, questionable sense of decency, and strange obsession with conspiracy theories<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp</ref>.

[[Image:http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7893/chickgy9.jpg]]

[[Jews]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_01.asp</ref>, [[Islam| Muslims]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp</ref>, Roman [[Catholic| Catholics]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp</ref>, [[Freemasons]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp</ref>, [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_01.asp</ref>, [[Mormonism| Mormons]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp</ref>, [[Buddhism| Buddhists]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0016/0016_01.asp</ref>, [[Hinduism| Hindus]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_01.asp</ref>, [[Wicca| Wiccans]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5012/5012_01.asp</ref>, homosexuals<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp</ref>, scientists<ref>http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp</ref>, [[Dungeons and Dragons]] players<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp</ref>, and Rock n' Roll fans<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp</ref> have all spoken out against their portrayals in Chick Tracts. Chick has responded that he does not hate these individuals, but hates the system they belong to that is feverishly working to win millions of [[soul| souls]] for [[Satan]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/bc/1999/hate.asp</ref>.

==External Links==

[http://www.chick.com Chick Publications]

==References==

<references/>