Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Magic (card game)

2008-12-29T01:54:49Z

Illuminated: Deleted justification, reworded the judgemental 'Scandalous' into a more direct and moderate form, removed arbitrary link

'''Magic: The Gathering''' is a [[strategy]] [[card game]] which lets players take the role of dueling [[Wizard_(fiction)|wizards]] who can summon creatures to fight for them. One defeats his opponent by reducing his life points down to zero or by being the last one with cards remaining in his draw pile.

The game consists of numerous elements from various fantasy worlds, including magic, [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[dragon]]s, mana, [[orc]]s, and so forth. One of the reasons for keeping the game limited to the size of a small deck of cards was so that it could be easily taken along to, and played at, gaming conventions.<ref>''The Coming CCG Storm: 1993-1995'' "A Brief History of Game" (2006) [http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml RPGnet] Accessed 31 December 2007.</ref>

Its creator is Richard Garfield and the game is owned by [[Wizards of the Coast]], the same firm that publishes [[Dungeons and Dragons]]. The full name of the game uses a subtitle, i.e., Magic: The Gathering.

== Colors ==
Magic cards come in five colors, representing the different aspects of magic: red (destruction, fire and mountains), blue ([[deceit]], water, islands), white (Order, yet sometimes confused for good; light, plains), green (nature and animals), and black (evil, death, decay, swamps). Additionally, there are colorless cards (artifacts) which are associated with no color and multicolored cards which are associated with two or more colors of magic.

Some cards represent creatures, which are summoned to attack and defend. Other spells can be used to attack other players, bolster ones own creatures, and a multitude of other effects.

==Criticism==
The card game very quickly came under scrutiny for its inclusion of dark magic elements, such as demons. It was only after strong criticism from concerned families that these elements were scaled back. However, in recent years demons have been returning to Magic<ref>http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr131</ref>.

Pastor David Brown has identified four key problems with the game:<ref>http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm</ref>
1) The primary focus on the occult
2) The violent nature of the game
3) The addictive nature of the game
4) The identification of the players with evil characters.

Additionally, a number of cards feature unrealistic and unusually sexual depictions of female characters.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC4NyO1gUqU Learn to play magic] - YouTube video

[[Category: Games]]
[[Category:Satanism]]

Taboo

2007-10-03T04:05:36Z

Illuminated:

'''Taboo''' means forbidden, though not necessarily 'evil'. Taboos are social norms, often preventative in nature. For example, the Western society taboo against [[cannibalism]].

A mark of differentiation between civilized countries and primitive tribes is that the higher religions explicitly require and forbid what is good and evil. For example, the Judeo-Christian tradition has the [[Ten Commandments]]. In primitive cultures, a taboo is often tacit.

Some anthropologists who promote [[cultural relativism]] have sought to introduce 'uncivilised' practices into 'civilised' society. The increasingly liberal ''National Geographic'' magazine (and especially its televized documentaries) take this approach. <ref>"And wonder what would drive you to be tatooed." [http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/programs/taboo.html?format=wm&vid=taboo.wmv (video)] </ref>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Morals]]

Taboo

2007-10-03T04:04:14Z

Illuminated:

'''Taboo''' means forbidden, though not necessarily 'evil'. Taboos are social norms which prevent people from committing sin. For example, the taboo against [[cannibalism]] helps enforce the law against [[murder]].

A mark of differentiation between civilized countries and primitive tribes is that the higher religions explicitly require and forbid what is good and evil. For example, the Judeo-Christian tradition has the [[Ten Commandments]]. In primitive cultures, a taboo is often tacit.

Some anthropologists who promote [[cultural relativism]] have sought to introduce 'uncivilised' practices into 'civilised' society. The increasingly liberal ''National Geographic'' magazine (and especially its televized documentaries) take this approach. <ref>"And wonder what would drive you to be tatooed." [http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/programs/taboo.html?format=wm&vid=taboo.wmv (video)] </ref>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Morals]]

Smokey Bear

2007-09-16T20:44:44Z

Illuminated:

Created in 1944, the '''Smokey Bear''' campaign is the longest running public service campaign in US History. Smokey's forest fire prevention message remained unchanged for 50 years until April 2001, when the Ad Council updated his message to address the increasing number of wildfires in the nation's woodlands. As one of the world's more recognizable fictional characters, Smokey's image is protected by US Federal Law and is administered by the USDA Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters and the Ad Council.

====History====

But Did you know the cartoon Smokey Bear is based upon an actual baby black bear that was found alone, charred, and scared after a devastating wildfire burned through [[New Mexico]]?

One spring day in 1950 in the Capitan Mountains of New Mexico, an operator in one of the fire towers to the north of the Capitans spotted smoke and called the location into the nearest ranger station. The first crew discovered a major fire being swept along the ground between the trees, driven by a strong wind. Word spread rapidly and more crews reported to help. Forest Rangers, army soldiers, men from the New Mexico State Game Department, and civilian volunteers worked together to gain control of the raging fire. As soon as they contained the fire to one spot, the wind would push it across the lines. During one of the lulls in firefighting, a report of a lonely bear cub who had been seen wandering near the fireline was reported. The men left him alone because they thought the mother bear might come for him.

Several soldiers were caught directly in the path of the fire storm, barely escaping by laying face down on a rockslide for over an hour until the fire had burned past them. In spite of the experience, the firefighters were safe except for a few scorches and some burned holes in their clothes.
Nearby, the little cub had been caught in the path of the same fire and had not fared as well. He had taken refuge in a tree that was now nothing but a charred smoking snag. His climb had saved his life but left him badly burned on the paws and hind legs. The soldiers removed the little bear cub from the burned tree, but they did not know what to do with him. A rancher, who had been helping the firefighters, agreed to take the cub home. A New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Ranger heard about the cub when he returned to the fire camp and drove to the rancher's home to get the bear. The cub needed veterinary aid and was flown in a small plane to Santa Fe where the burns were treated and bandaged.

The news about the little bear spread swiftly throughout New Mexico. Soon the United Press and [[Associated Press]] picked up the story and broadcast it nationwide. Many people wrote or called to inquire about the little bear's progress. The State Game Warden wrote an official letter to the Chief of the Forest Service, presenting the cub to the agency with the understanding that the small bear would be dedicated to a publicity program of fire prevention and conservation. The go-ahead was given to send the bear to Washington, DC, where he found a home at the National Zoo, becoming the living symbol of Smokey Bear.

==See also==
* [[Firefighting]]

==External links==
[http://www.smokey.com To view Smokey Bear's website click here]

[[category:fire fighting]]

Pentagram

2007-09-15T03:11:40Z

Illuminated:

The '''Pentagram''' (or Pentacle) depicts a five-pointed star circumscribed within a circle. Typically one of the points is in the upward position and each "arm" of the start represents an [[alchemy | alchemist]]'s element: [[earth]], [[wind]], [[fire]], [[water]]. The fifth arm represents the "fifth element" ("quintessence"). This fifth element is composed of "ether" and represents the spirit. <ref>http://www.angelfire.com/id/robpurvis/pentagram.html</ref>

This orientation of the star, with the spirit held up above the elements, is part of the masonic symbolism incorporated in the [[American flag]].

Many people (perhaps wrongly) believe the Pentagram is associated with [[Satanism | Satanic belief]] or worship, but the Satanic Pentagram is an '''Inverted Pentagram'''. Rather than one point at the top of the star, the Inverted Pentagram depicts two points at the top of the star and one at the bottom. In this fashion it also represents a goat's head (and vice versa). In the Inverted Pentagram, the spirit is below the elements. This may represent the idea of idea of putting the material world and thus carnal desires before the spiritual health. <ref>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Hall/7802/penta.html</ref><ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/pentagram--meanings.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:religion]]

Judicial branch

2007-09-15T03:08:13Z

Illuminated:

The Judicial branch is one of the major parts of the United States Government. The other two are the [[Executive branch]] and the [[Legislative Branch]]

Judicial branch

2007-09-15T03:07:48Z

Illuminated:

The Judicial branch is one of the major parts of the United States Government. The other two are the [[Executive branch]] and the [[Legislative branch]]

Judicial branch

2007-09-15T03:06:43Z

Illuminated: New page: The Judicial branch is one of the major parts of the United States Government. The other two are the Execuitive branch and the Legislative branch

The Judicial branch is one of the major parts of the United States Government. The other two are the [[Execuitive branch]] and the [[Legislative branch]]

Legislative Branch

2007-09-15T03:05:58Z

Illuminated:

The Legislative Branch is one of the three major parts of the United States government. The other two are the [[Executive branch]] and the [[Judicial branch]].

Legislative Branch

2007-09-15T03:05:45Z

Illuminated:

The Legislative Branch is one of the three major parts of the United States government. The other two are the [[Executive branch]] and the [[Judicial Branch]].

Legislative Branch

2007-09-15T03:03:48Z

Illuminated: New page: The Legislative Branch is one of the three major parts of the United States government. The other two are the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The Legislative Branch is one of the three major parts of the United States government. The other two are the [[Executive Branch]] and the [[Judicial Branch]].

Executive branch

2007-09-15T03:03:00Z

Illuminated: New page: The Executive Branch is one of the three major parts of the United states government. The other two are the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.

The Executive Branch is one of the three major parts of the United states government. The other two are the [[Legislative Branch]] and the [[Judicial Branch]].

Patriot Act

2007-09-15T02:59:54Z

Illuminated: /* How the Act Fights Terrorism */

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George Bush signing Patriot Act before Bi-Partisan gathering of Members of Congress]]‎
The '''Patriot Act''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or simply the Patriot Act) -- is an antiterrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impeteous to pass the measures. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd, with few minor changes. A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush Administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers for obtaining [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s and Senate's liking than the version approved by the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. The Senate agreed to the sunset provision and this version passed the House the next day by a massive 337-79 vote. The House and Senate reconciled an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold dissenting) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act attempts to combat terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but many have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first logical step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to cause terror. The Patriot Act provides the leeway for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect is assumed to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidentiary hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or could know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Controversy==
[[Image:Costoffreedom2.gif|right|250px‎]]

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarians]] and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]]. Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill. “The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />

Another problem opponents have with the Patriot act is with the sneak and peek search warrants. They claim that the standards are too low, and the definitions are too vague, such that warrants could be executed non-terror related crimes or even non-violent crimes like [[health care]] fraud.<ref>Dempsey, James X. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> These opponents argue that the weak definition of a “reasonable” time to notify the suspect that he had been searched could lead to situations where the suspect is denied his constitutional rights.<ref>Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 118-9 (Cato Institute, 2003)</ref> If, for example, the FBI got a search warrant to search a suspect’s garbage but found evidence by searching the subject’s desk, by the time the suspect was notified it is likely he will have no legal recourse.

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconditional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented additional safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: LIbrary of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

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

[[Category:United States law]]

Radical

2007-09-15T02:49:26Z

Illuminated:

A '''radical''' (in political history) was a member of the [[liberal]] party in the [[French]] National Assembly.

[[Category:Politics]]

User:Illuminated

2007-09-12T04:21:08Z

Illuminated: New page: I am but a small voice in this maelstrom of strong opinion and powerful ideals. I make my way through the howls and shouts as best I can, giving aid where I feel it is needed.

I am but a small voice in this maelstrom of strong opinion and powerful ideals. I make my way through the howls and shouts as best I can, giving aid where I feel it is needed.

User talk:Illuminated

2007-09-12T04:11:59Z

Illuminated: New page: I am but a small voice in this maelstrom of vast opinion and powerful ideals, giving aid and attention where I feel it is required.

I am but a small voice in this maelstrom of vast opinion and powerful ideals, giving aid and attention where I feel it is required.

Race

2007-09-12T03:56:41Z

Illuminated:

'''Race''' is a concept which classifies human beings according to broad physical characteristics such as skin color.

Various different classifications have been proposed for human races in the past. Evolutionary text books used to have a chapter on eugenics that discussed the 3 race breakdowns of Negroid (mostly Africans), Mongoloid (mostly Asian) and Caucasian (mostly Europeans) and which of the races were supposedly the furtherest along in "evolution".

The concept of race is no longer considered scientifically valid, as there is very little genetic differences between the so-called races, and those differences are mostly superficial.

For example, all people have the same skin-coloring pigment ([[melanin]]), and what "color" one is depends mainly on how much melanin one has.

Whether or not it is scientifically valid, race is still requested in the government census and many other forms.

==See also==
*[[Racism]]
*[[Eugenics]]

[[category:sociology]]
[[category:ethnicities]]

Sin

2007-09-12T03:49:32Z

Illuminated: /* Socialism */

[[Sin]] (from [[Old English]] ''synn'', from either [[Old Norse]] ''synd'' or [[German]] ''Sünde'', from ''sun(d)jo'' it is true, from [[Sanskrit]](?) ''es-'' it is) is any failure to conform to the letter of a given code of [[morality]], or the state of being of one so failing to conform, or the state of the world that results from such failure.

== Meaning of sin ==
The root meaning of the [[English]] word ''sin'' is actually, "He is guilty as charged." This in turn implies that the person committing the offense knew, or ought to have known, that his act would ''be'' an offense before he committed it. This word actually captures the meaning that many religious traditions ascribe to sin.

The [[Greek]] word used in the original [[New Testament]] and translated "sin" in English is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia'') (whence ''[[hamartoma]]'' a malformation of [[cell]]s that are within their usual place in the body). This word captures the ''[[Christian]]'' meaning of sin much better. ''Hamartia'' means ''missing a target.'' Thus sin does not require bad intentions, but might result from a misunderstanding. This is not to say that the consequences are any less dire, however. It does mean that sin need not be intentional; it can be a knowing (but not intentional), reckless, or negligent act.

=== Required: a moral context ===
Sin, which is a moral failure, cannot exist in the absence of a code of [[morality]]. [[Objectivism]] defines morality as "a code of values accepted by choice."

This is not to say that sin requires a context of ''divinity.'' Objectivism, for example, refuses to admit [[God]], while still prescribing a standard of value and a code of morality that follows from it. (Whether such a code can properly stand, by the rules of Objectivism itself, is another matter.) The context in which sin ceases to have meaning is not [[atheism]] ''per se'' but rather [[amoralism]]--the doctrine that says that no person may properly define what is moral for another, because no two people will ever value the same thing to the same degree, or value the same collection of things by the same rank structure.

Whether any man ''ever'' lives without some form of moral code--even if that code is, "I denounce as sin any disagreement with myself or any attempt to stand in my way"--is [[Can any man live without some code of morality?|debatable]]. Nevertheless, without ''some'' form of moral context, sin has no meaning.

== Differing views of sin ==
==== Jewish ====
In [[Judaism]], and certainly in ancient practice, the preferred method of atonement for sin was [[blood sacrifice]]. The Book of [[Leviticus]] prescribed multiple animal sacrifices for atonement for various types of sin. But by far the most important atonement--on the [[Day of Atonement]] (''Yowm Kippur'')--was made by the high priest of the [[Hebrew]] people (originally [[Aaron]], brother of [[Moses]]). This involved making a blood sacrifice, entering the [[Holy of Holies]] (in [[Latin]], ''sanctum sanctorum''), and sprinkling some of the blood from the sacrifice on the [[Ark of the Covenant]].

Animal sacrifice has not been part of Jewish practice since the destruction of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] by the future [[Rome|Roman]] [[Emperor]] [[Titus]] in [[70 AD]]. But the [[Old Testament]] did not imply that animal sacrifice was the sole ''necessary'' measure for reconciliation. Simple repentance and prayer sufficed numerous times in [[Bible]] history.

Today, though animal sacrifices are no longer observed, Jews do observe ''Yom Kippur'' and other festivals related to repentance and reconciliation. But a movement now exists to attempt to regain exclusive control of the [[Temple Mount]] area in [[Jerusalem]], rebuild the Temple, and resume the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings prescribed in the [[Torah]].

In traditional Jewish thought, sin may be balanced by the good deeds one performs throughout life; the image of scales weighing one's life are prominent in folklore, similar to other ancient Middle Eastern religions such as ancient Egypt.

=== Christian views ===
==== Roman Catholic ====
[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] doctrine distinguishes [[original sin]], or the sin of [[Adam]], from ''personal'' sins, which require individual reconciliation with [[God]]. A personal sin may be ''mortal'' (a particularly grave matter that the perpetrator commits by deliberate intent) or ''venial'' (a less grave matter that could result from a misunderstanding). The RCC distinction is: Mortal sins cut a person off from the grace of God; venial sins do not, but still injure one's relationship to God.

The one mortal sin that, to a Catholic, would be unforgivable (because its successful commission leaves no opportunity for reconciliation later), is [[suicide]]. Beyond that, a person may receive reconciliation for a mortal sin by making [[Confession (Catholic)|confession]] to a [[Priest (Catholic)|priest]] and receiving the ceremony of [[Absolution from sin|absolution]]. One can reconcile from a venial sin by the sacrament of reconciliation, or by receiving communion, or [[Holy Eucharist]].

Roman Catholic doctrine historically included two other controversial holdings. One is [[purgatory]], a place where the soul must be held to "purge" him of all traces of sin before he can gain entry to [[heaven]]. Redemption from purgatory allegedly required the payment of a monetary fee by the deceased's relatives to the Church. The other is the [[indulgence]], a fee paid to the church by the perpetrator in advance. Indulgences have not been sold for centuries, and recently [[Pope]] [[Benedict XVI]] issued an [[encyclical]] casting doubt on the entire concept of purgatory.

===== Virgin Mary =====
Roman Catholic doctrine holds that not only was [[Jesus]] sinless, but so, also, was His Mother, [[Virgin Mary|Mary]]. The belief that the Virgin Mary was sinless at conception is called the Immaculate Conception.

The [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] teaches that the Virgin Mary was born with Original Sin but that she was cleansed of this sin at the time of the Annunciation. The Church also teaches that by free will she did not commit any actual sin.

This doctrine, called ''Marianism'', is not ''universally'' held by all Catholics, however.

==== Anglican Communion ====
The [[Anglican Communion]], essentially the breakaway church of the [[United Kingdom]], retains the Roman Catholic tradition of confession and absolution of sin. But instead of an individual process, confession in Anglican churches is a group activity, and absolution is pronounced by a [[Minister (Protestant)|minister]] to the entire church-going group. Purgatory and indulgences have no place in Anglican doctrine.

==== Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ====

In the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.

The Orthodox churches, including Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, differ little from [[Judaism]] in their holding of what sin is and how to reconcile it--except that animal sacrifices have never been part of Orthodox tradition.

==== The Reformation ====
In [[1517]], [[Martin Luther]] led the most serious break from Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition, the [[Protestant Reformation]]. This occurred at about the time that King [[Henry VIII]], then of the [[Kingdom of England]], formed the Church of England, the forerunner of the Anglican Communion.

Luther is most famous for his "95 precepts nailed to the church-house door." The most important of these is the principle that he stated in Latin as ''Sola Scriptura''--literally, "Scripture only." Luther rejected out-of-hand most of the various categories of sin, and the elaborate rituals that attended its so-called reconciliation.

To Luther, and to his intellectual heirs in the [[Lutheran Church]] and the [[Dutch Reformed Church]], the Bible tells all one needs to know about sin. Sin, according to Luther, is any failure to observe God's commandments or other Godly precepts that one may determine from the actual teachings of [[Jesus]] and of His [[Apostle]]s (especially [[Paul]], the most prolific writer among them). ''Reconciliation'' from sin was a ''private'' matter between God and any of His followers. A priest or minister ''was not'' required, because that would imply that a human being, of whatever office, could stand in the place of God--a thing Luther regarded as an insult to God, which is the definition of [[blasphemy]].

Nor was any animal sacrifice required, because [[Jesus]] Himself made the One Total and Complete Sacrifice of His own life for the sin condition of the world (see below) and for the sins of individual people, past, present ''and future''. Salvation was strictly by faith and strictly by grace. Luther drew directly on the letters of [[Paul]] that addressed this very subject.

==== The Baptist Tradition ====
The [[Baptist|Baptists]] would generally agree with Luther. Like him, Baptists hold that sin is an act or omission that displeases God, and the state of being that the perpetrator falls into, and remains in until he has confessed this sin.

Baptist churches do not tend to engage in corporate, collective confessions. Rather, Baptist practice depends heavily on {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=18|verses=15-20|version=KJV}}, which prescribes this procedure for the handling of sin that gives offense to a fellow believer:

# The aggrieved person, or the minister if the aggrieved person has asked him to, tries to encourage the perpetrator to repent. ''Repentance'' (Greek ''metanoia'') means a change of mind, or a change of heart.
# Failing that, whoever tried to talk to the perpetrator the first time, tries a second time and brings a witness.
# If this still does not bring repentance, and a cessation of the behavior, then and only then does the matter come before the entire church. The minister lays out the case, and puts the matter to a vote as to whether the offender ought to be allowed to remain in fellowship.

Not all Baptist churches practice this discipline, however. In such environments, sin is a matter between the offender and God (and the person or persons to whom the offender might have given offense). Some observers suggest that churches suffer when they fail to practice discipline as they should.

==== Fundamentalists ====
: ''Main Article: [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]''

The above article is a comprehensive theory of sin, and its effects on the offender, on mankind as a whole, and on the entire world.

=== Islam ===
In [[Islam]], sin is very simple: anything that runs counter to the will of [[Allah]] (Arabic for [[God]]). In Islam, sin is simply an act, never a state of being.

Islam recognizes five gradations of sin, in order of severity:

# Mistakes.
# Immorality.
# Transgressions.
# Wickedness and depravity.
# Ascribing a partner to God. Thus this one special instance of [[blasphemy]] is held worse than any other sin a man can commit.

In Islam, permanent reconciliation cannot come in life. Instead, at death, a person has his "good deeds" measured against his "bad deeds" (sins). If the good outweighs the bad, then the person must walk a tightrope over a lake of fire in order to cross into heaven. Islam, however, offers one important exception: any person who dies ''in the course of an act that advances the Muslim faith'' gains automatic entry into heaven, regardless of any prior sins he has committed. The usual, and some Muslims (particularly the [[Wahhabism|Wahabbi]] sect) say the only, context for such a death is ''[[jihad]]'', literally ''holy [[war]]''. Furthermore, ''jihad'' is a ''physical'' war against non-adherents to Islam.

Other Muslims will say that ''jihad'' is not physical at all, but refers instead to a personal struggle that every Muslim must engage in continually against sin and the temptations thereto.

Still others state that two forms of Jihad are known:
# The greater Jihad, which is the internal struggle within a person against sin.
# The lesser Jihad, physical war against the infidel.

Those who make that distinction state that what they call the "lesser jihad" is practiced only by fanatical holders to Islam. A ''fanatic'' is one who holds to a set of beliefs uncritically--that is, without being willing to judge them. Since the [[World Trade Center incident]], a number of Muslims ''have'' begun a critical analysis of Muslim doctrine (both verbal and written) and the place of Islam in the civilized world. Whether those voices can find sufficent logical support in the written texts that define Islam is debatable.

=== Objectivism ===
Objectivism does not admit to any kind of divinity, but it still has its own code of morality. Though a student of Objectivism does not normally use the word ''sin'', one may best infer what Objectivism considers sinful by examining what it teaches man to value. A basic, but by no means exhaustive, list would include:

# Failure to be relentlessly rational in everything one does.
# Coveting the fruits of another's labor without being willing to pay for those fruits.
# Failure to give value for value received.
# Violation of another person's right to pursue his life in a non-offensive manner.
# Initiating the use of force against another person or group of persons.
# Accepting as real anything one cannot see.
# Refusing to accept reality.
# Attempting to create one's own reality.

Reconciliation for sin, beyond restitution to another to whom one has brought material loss by his sin, is not generally required. In the Objectivist model, one pays the consequences of his particular sins in the form of loss of trade, loss of respect, ''et cetera.'' Because Objectivism admits no heaven, it admits no [[hell]], either, and therefore all of the consequences of sin ''must'' occur in this life.

=== Cults and cult figures ===
A [[cult]], properly speaking, is a belief system centered on one person, or the group of persons led by that person. In the context of a cult, sin is any refusal to uphold the decisions or obey the orders of the leader, and anything else that gives offense to the leader. Reconciliation is generally at the leader's own discretion.

=== Totalitarianism ===
[[Totalitarianism]] is a [[philosophy]] of [[government]] that holds that the government ''must'' have absolute authority over ''all'' aspects of life. [[Communist]]s are totalitarians, just as the [[Nazi]]s were.

Totalitarian authorities and their apologists have their concept of sin as well: it is anything that works against the government, or tries to thwart its goals. This is true even in a regime that is explicitly [[Atheism|atheistic]] in world view. Reconciliation generally requires recantation.

=== Socialism ===
[[Socialism]], whether as a system of government or as a school of philosophy, has a definite standard of value, known as Utilitarianism: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Sin under socialism is anything that undermines this. Theoretically, sin might also include ''conspicuous consumption'' at a level beyond that attainable by "the average person."

=== Environmentalism ===
[[Environmentalism]] also has a standard of value: ''the good of the planet as a wild system.'' Anything that harms the earth or makes it less wild is sinful in this system. The controversy surrounding [[global warming]] is, at root, a controversy about environmentalism as a source of moral values, and the allegation that humans in general, and/or some humans in particular, have transgressed against the environmentalist moral standard.

== Summary ==
Some religious and philosophical traditions consider sin to be a deliberate act; others say that it can be merely a mistake. Some say that reconciliation for sin requires a certain work; others that reconciliation is by the grace of [[God]] (or, for some, a cult leader), and still others (most notably the Objectivists) say that reconciliation is not required, except perhaps to any particular affronted person.

As mentioned, [[atheism|atheists]] do not necessarily lack a concept of sin (though they might not call it by that name). But ''amoral'' individuals, if such exist, cannot understand sin, because sin presupposes a moral code that someone might breach.

== References ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Sin Sin] by [[CreationWiki]]

[http://www.oca.org Orthodox Church in America]

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible study]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Talk:Communism

2007-09-12T03:42:16Z

Illuminated: /* Re-write Opening Sentence */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba.

{{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people."

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)