Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay: Worst Liberal Songs

2013-08-22T03:43:59Z

JRegden:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Song
!Artist/Band
!Comments
!Year
!Genre
|-
|"(Don't Fear) The Reaper"
|[[Blue Öyster Cult]]
|The band's guitarist, Donald "Buck Dharma" Roser, wrote the song. He debunked the idea that it promoted suicide, and said it was about the inevitability of death; some people interpret the lyrics as suggesting a murder-suicide because of the mention of ''Romeo and Juliet''.<ref>[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1607 (Don't Fear) The Reaper by Blue Öyster Cult.] songfacts.com, retrieved August 16, 2012.</ref>
|1976
|Rock
|-
|"Killing in the Name"
|[[Rage Against the Machine]]
|Unsubstantiated accusations of racism by law enforcement agencies, going as far as to accuse them of supporting the [[Ku Klux Klan]]. "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses".
|1992
|Rock
|-
|"Bodies"
|[[Drowning Pool]]
|"Let the bodies hit the floor"; bad coincidental release timeline in conjunction with [[9/11]]. It was also used to break the will of soldiers during the [[Iraq War]], seems to promote violence and bloodshed.
|2001
|rock/heavy metal
|-
|"Beds are Burning"
|Midnight Oil
|Calls for an extremely drastic compromise in response to the [[Aboriginal]] conflicts; handing back [[Australia]].
|1987
|rock
|-
|"Poker Face"
|[[Lady Gaga]]
|Ridiculously over-rated and over valued song that fantasizes about the life of bi-sexual women dating men, but desiring to date other women.
|2008
|pop/top 40
|-
|"I Kissed A Girl"
|[[Katy Perry]]
|A song about a [[lesbian]] kiss which has been heavily criticized by conservatives in the media.
|2008
|pop
|-
|"Imagine"
|[[John Lennon]]
|A celebratory song of atheism, godlessness, and a world that "will live as one" once God is defeated.
|1971
|rock
|-
|"Lying is The Most Fun A Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes Off"
|[[Panic! At the Disco]]
|Liberalism at its finest: promoting [[sexual immorality]] in young adults.
|2010
|Pop
|-
|"[[This Land Is Your Land]]"
|[[Woody Guthrie]] (also recorded by various liberal/socialist artists)
|Song attacking the institution of private property, promoting [[welfare]] and criticising the poverty that exists under the capitalist system.
|1940
|Folk
|-
|"Back in the USSR"
|[[The Beatles]]
|A parody of Beach Boy songs, as well as "Back in the U.S.A." by Chuck Berry.<ref>"I wrote that as a kind of Beach Boys parody. And 'Back in the USA' was a Chuck Berry song, so it kinda took off from there. I just liked the idea of Georgia girls and talking about places like the Ukraine as if they were California, you know? It was also hands across the water, which I'm still conscious of. 'Cuz they like us out there, even though the bosses in the Kremlin may not. The kids do. And that to me is very important for the future of the race."
[http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/dbpm.int2.html ''Playboy'' interview with Paul and Linda McCartney by Joan Goodman, ©1984 Playboy Press] retrieved August 16, 2012</ref>
|1968
|Pop
|-
|"Yes We Can"
|[[will.i.am]]
|A pro-Obama propaganda song.
|2008
|Hip hop
|-
|"Born This Way"
|[[Lady Gaga]]
|A song promoting the fallacy that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle into which people are born.
|2011
|Pop
|-
|"OK2BGAY"
|Tomboy
|Another homosexuality promoting song.
|N/A
|Pop
|-
|"Bad Religion"
|Frank Ocean
|A song about homosexual emotional dependency.
|2012
|R&B
|-
|"Harlem Shake"
|Baauer
|Terrible composition, terrible lyrics, all in all a song that perfectly captures the miserable state into which western civilization has reached due to liberalism.
|2012
|Random noise strung together
|-
|"War"
|[[Edwin Starr]]
|A song promoting pacifism and denouncing all wars, including just wars.
|1970
|Funk
|-
|"If I Had A Rocket Launcher"
|Bruce Cockburn
|A song which denounces regulated borders and the military in general
|1984
|Pop Rock
|-
|"The Internationale"
|Eugène Pottier/Pierre De Geyter
|A song promoting the abolition of private property and all individual liberty.
|1888
|Random noise strung together.
|-
|"Hey Baby"
|[[Ted Nugent]]
|A song promoting sexual promiscuity.
|1975
|Rock
|-
|"Cat Scratch Fever"
|Ted Nugent
|A song promoting sexual promiscuity.
|1977
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Wang Dang Sweet Poontang"
|Ted Nugent
|A disgusting, filthy perverted song.
|1978
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Yank Me, Crank Me"
|Ted Nugent
|A song promoting sexual promiscuity.
|1978
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Wango Tangon"
|Ted Nugent
|A disgusting, filthy perverted song.
|1980
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Jailbait"
|Ted Nugent
|A song promoting statutory rape.
|1981
|Rock
|-
|"Klstrphnky"
|Ted Nugent
|A disgusting, filthy perverted song.
|2002
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Crave"
|Ted Nugent
|While not as filthy as other Ted Nugent songs, it should still be condemned for the line "Sure I've lived the American Dream", suggesting that Nugent's sexual degeneracy is the American Dream.
|2002
|Hard Rock
|-
|"My Baby Likes My Butter on Her Gritz"
|Ted Nugent
|A disgusting, filthy perverted song.
|2002
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Sexpot"
|Ted Nugent
|A disgusting, filthy perverted song.
|2002
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Girl Scout Cookies"
|Ted Nugent
|While there are no sexually explicit lyrics in this song, it still seems to imply a liking for underage sex.
|2007
|Hard Rock
|-
|"Thrift Shop"
|Macklemore
|While it does advocate being financially responsible, it also suggests that capitalism is wrong and socialism (the sharing of goods) is ideal.
|2012
|Rap
|-
|}
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Songs]]

Media bullying

2013-03-11T12:47:52Z

JRegden:

'''Media bullying''' is aggressive [[bias]] often employed by the liberal [[media]] in the attempt to influence a candidate, a politician, an institution, or even sports contestants. In some cases, the victim's opponents use the media in a calculated fashion to frame an issue in a light unfavorable to the victim.

Examples of '''media bullying''' include:

* caused the Kansas board in charge of balloting to back down within 48 hours from its objection to the lack of proof of [[Obama]]'s citizenship
* caused [[RINO]]s to cancel the first 36 hours of the [[Republican National Convention]] in August 2012, an unprecedented capitulation, lest the media blame Republicans for supposedly being indifferent to a hurricane's (relatively modest) forecasted effects
* trying to force [[conservative]] [[Todd Akin]] to pull out of the key [[U.S. Senate]] race in [[Missouri]] in August 2012
* trying to force [[Hillary Clinton]] to pull out of the [[Democratic]] primary in 2008
* consistently holding [[Sarah Palin]] to an unfairly high standard while giving a pass to liberal candidates
* forcing Queen Elizabeth to give a special public eulogy for the media favorite [[Princess Diana]], who had been estranged from the royal family
* imposing strict [[gun control]] in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] by creating an hysteria from over-publicized and isolated incidents in the 1990s
* ridiculing Vice President [[Dan Quayle]] for his supposed gaffes, in contrast with downplaying gaffes by [[liberals]]
* forcing President [[Richard Nixon]] to resign for covering up a scandal, in contrast with defending President [[Bill Clinton]]'s covering up a scandal
* sex abuse in [[public schools]] is worse than in religious institutions, yet the media constantly bullies religious (especially [[Catholic]]) officials about it
* the media bullies the competitors of [[Tiger Woods]] in every major golf contest
* the media portrays [[Paris Hilton]] as dumb, but she's no dumber than other [[Hollywood]] figures
* the media bullied airships into terminating service by creating an unjustified hysteria based on the [[Hindenburg]] accident
[[category:media]]

Talk:Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese

2013-01-09T23:36:44Z

JRegden: /* A problem with this essay.... */

== A problem with this essay.... ==

Rick Warren. Not a thin guy. Nor is Rush Limbaugh. Duane Gish carries a few extra pounds. Weight issues afflict more than a few Christian, conservative, creationists. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 17:41, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::Christian creationists' worldview indicates that men sin and sometimes act contrary to reason. On the other hand, evolutionists often maintain that science is on their side and that creationists are unscientific and are against science. Of course, that doesn't excuse their sin as Jesus said, "Be ye perfect as I am perfect" and Christians are expected to live holy lifestyles. But if they do sin, they are expected to repent. In addition, staunch and very vocal evolutionists are often atheists who come up with names for atheists such as "bright"/objectivist/etc. and constantly maintain that atheists are rational. As far as what [[medical science]] says about being overweight, you can read about that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#Atheists_and_physical_and_mental_health_related_problems_associated_with_obesity HERE]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:52, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::By the way, it is not an essay. It is an article entirely made up of facts and it appears to cause you some consternation. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:58, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::::::: "In addition, staunch and very vocal evolutionists are often atheists who come up with names for atheists such as "bright"/objectivist/etc. and constantly maintain that atheists are rational." That is true, I have seen them do this often, but why should we behave like them? I thought we were supposed to be establishing a truly useful encyclopedia not mimicking the behavior of the worst people on the other side[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:59, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Enough is enough already. The facts about religiousness and obesity seem to be the opposite of what "Conservative" says. I wonder how "Conservative" will respond to this article that took me 30 seconds to find on Google: http://www.arecentstudy.com/studies/JSSR.pdf Do multiple papers dealing specifically obesity being more common among the religious trump this Gallop survey about healthy living that doesn't even deal with obesity? "Conservative" does not seem to be telling a complete or accurate story with any of these goofy fat atheist articles in my opinion. The evidence seems to be that "Conservative" is very wrong in his or her conclusions and likes slinging mud against his enemies. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:01, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::Do the studies deal with the "very religious" and aggregate/analyze data accordingly? How recent are the studies and do they reflect the current state of affairs? How large are the sample sizes compared to the Gallup study? Are you denying there are fat evolutionists and fat atheists? :) Pardon the pun, but are some of the fat evolutionists/atheists or have some of the fat evolutionists/atheists been prominent evolutionists/atheists? :) Next, Christian creationists' worldview indicates that men sin and sometimes act contrary to reason. Of course, that doesn't excuse their sin as Jesus said, "Be ye perfect as I am perfect" and Christians are expected to live holy lifestyles. But if they do sin, they are expected to repent. On the other hand, evolutionists often maintain that science is on their side and that creationists are unscientific and are against science. In addition, staunch and very vocal evolutionists are often atheists who come up with names for atheists such as "bright"/objectivist/etc. and constantly maintain that atheists are rational. As far as what [[medical science]] says about being overweight, you can read about that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#Atheists_and_physical_and_mental_health_related_problems_associated_with_obesity HERE].[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
Hi Conservative. Thanks for the reply. I had not really stopped to consider the nature of sin when I wrote what I did. You are absolutely correct. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 20:07, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::No problem. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:14, 1 January 2011 (EST)
I'm happy to have a discussion with you about the issue I raised but you're jumping around to all kinds of nonsense. I'm not going to respond to your worldview issues because they're completely unrelated to the paper I pointed out to you. If you're going to be talking about a connection (it looks nonexistent from the poor evidence you presented) between atheism and obesity you should read the paper I showed you and follow the citations in it to other studies looking at the relation of obesity and religiousness. Then you can answer the questions you asked me for yourself. One would think papers specifically relating obesity to religiousness would be more important to someone interested in speaking truth than a survey of people's healthy lifestyle that does not support the conclusion you say it does. I don't think you're being very serious about this issue. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:48, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::Nate, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:35, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::Why not say something about the paper I showed you instead of changing the subject again? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:40, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::You sure are thin skinned about the subject of fat evolutionists. Second, I did respond and you gave me a non-response in return. You can safely be ignored at this point. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:11, 3 January 2011 (EST)
::::::::Where is your response? You asked a question about the paper showing you didn't read it and then brought up some irrelevant points. When I pointed this out and said you should read it and that the religiousness/obesity connection cuts the opposite direction you say it does you asked an irrelevant question about proof and evidence that atheism is true. That's obviously not the subject of discussion. And after I point that out you're going to "safely" ignore me? Thats not how civil discussions work. If anyone was keeping score they'd say you just publicly forfeited this debate, but I am not debating I just want you to please have a look at the paper I showed you and tell me if it changes your opinion on this subject. I'm not thin skinned about fat evolutionists. I am sensitive about the power of terrible arguments like personal attacks on people who don't understand that negative personal characteristics about specific individuals don't have anything to do with whether their ideas are correct. I'm pretty fat. Do you want to follow me around and hound me for drinking beer and not Slim Fast. There's no charity in it. If you want to say something about Myers individually why not talk about him being openly derisive of our faith. Do not attack him for being fat or you look like a 2nd grade bully. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 17:16, 4 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I see you're inserting insults to strangers into this awful article but haven't responded to my point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:06, 25 January 2011 (EST)

== This Essay ==
The effect this essay has is this: it makes conservative Christians look petty. It makes our arguments weak. The inquisitive mind simply thinks ''Oh, they're running out of arguments against atheists, so they're calling them fat''. Maybe it's meant to be parody or comedy, but it makes this website, and by proxy conservative Christians, look stupid. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 18:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Talk:Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships

2012-06-15T21:06:03Z

JRegden:

Can I create an "Evangelical Christians and immoral relationships" article to talk about Ted Haggard taking it up the bum from his meth dealer? Or is that not encyclopaedic enough?

When I first edited here I thought it had a lot of potential as a valuable resource for those fed up with liberal propaganda. Now it's just become an idiot's playground, full of nonsense and Andy's weird ideas about new conservative words and zombie Castros. Shame. --[[User:LiamCaldicott|LiamCaldicott]] 19:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Liam, what are your thoughts on the information I added relating to atheism websites? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:41, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
For an article called "Atheist leaders and immoral relationships", it is shockingly low on atheist leaders in immoral relationships. Are we all allowed to create articles like this and claim that the "leadership" of a group does something, as long as someone, ''somewhere'', practices that behavior?
On more of a style point, could you point out any significant difference between this article and [[Internet_atheism_and_polyamory]]? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 08:43, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obama, for all his faults, is a very good orator and speechmaker, yet virtually all of his blind cronies are blithering idiots who can barely string a sentence together. I think we can definitely assume a leader's qualities, bad or good, do not apply to his followers. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 17:06, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

2012-05-24T03:50:31Z

JRegden:

Sounds frightening. Is there any known cure? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 21:40, 20 November 2010 (EST)
:::Thanks for the input. I just added a section to the essay entitled '''Treatment of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'''. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:20, 20 November 2010 (EST)
[[File:Dog with a bone.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|If you think taking a bone away from a dog is hard, try getting a [[liberal]] with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] to stop thinking about [[Conservapedia]]!
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsand/4589825889/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

== lol ==

I love you people. we need to get you all a tv show.. ratings would be big!! [[User:Xoxoxoxo|Xoxoxoxo]] 18:13, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==Should it be noted==
That COCD can afflict conservatives as well? If an obsessive compulsion with Conservapedia caused people to read the Bible less, would we censor that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Dog photos ==
I love dogs as much as the next guy but having them all over this article both takes away from the point, and makes Conservapedia look a little... childish? Thoughts? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 23:50, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden

2012-05-11T06:57:30Z

JRegden:

{{Useful links}}

The socks which were blocked, including yours, had a single IP, but I will accept your explanation. Please continue to edit in the site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:13, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Greetings from a fellow gay (and very much out and proud!) editor at conservapedia! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 21:13, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, wut?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 21:44, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== A special thank you ==

Thank you for helping to tag the contributions by [[User:Slaine]] for speedy deletion. I have blocked the user infinitely. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

== Quick Thanks ==

Thank you for cleaning up my addition to [[Homosexual Agenda]]. Still learning to get the right 'tone' for articles, much appreciated. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 02:57, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Homosexual Agenda

2012-05-11T03:05:21Z

JRegden: I felt after Obama's idiotic statement earlier this week a line like this early in the article was appropriate. I'd be up for discussing it on the talk page if anyone has any issues.

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for [[homosexuals]] that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see [[hate speech]], [[hate crime]]s). Such special rights will necessarily come [[zero-sum game|at the expense]] of the rights of broader society.

President Barack Hussein [[Obama]] is an advocate of the homosexual agenda, insisting on treating it as a national political issue and forcing the American people to waste time on it instead of dealing with the issues of the day.

Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish.

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

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''<ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8</ref> contended that the homosexual movement,

:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives. <ref>Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.</ref>

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.<ref>Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43</ref>

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and — to the concern of the Parkers — a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).<ref>John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.</ref>

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',<ref>http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf</ref> reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.<ref> Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319</ref> And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. <ref>See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.</ref>

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref> "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

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

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

== Specific goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws.
#Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing the in US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.
#Ignore the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]] because their first amendment rights allow them to.
#Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.
#Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]</ref><ref>[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]</ref><ref>[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticize homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]</ref>
#Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Lobbying for equal employment rights.<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref><ref>www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); "Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)</ref>
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.
#In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.
#Demands protections from job discrimination. <ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref>
#Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>

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

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has,

*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.

*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.

*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.

*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

*appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.

*declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

*Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.<ref>update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM</ref>

=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in [[homosexual logic|specious argumentation]], such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.<ref>Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church</ref> This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"<ref>[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]</ref>, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89526</ref><ref>http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html</ref><ref>http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street</ref><ref>http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html</ref><ref>http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm</ref><ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95296</ref><ref>Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]</ref><ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence"]</ref> In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.<ref>LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'', is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,152180,00.html</ref> Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name ''Erastes Pill'', who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted ''jamming,'' in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/080213</ref><ref>http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm</ref>

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
<blockquote>
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] examine and expose.]<ref> [http://web.archive.org/web/20070927163416/http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=19 ''After the Ball--Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won,''] Thursday, June 3rd, 2004</ref>
</blockquote>

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref> “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi</ref><ref>[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]</ref>

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."<ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”<ref>Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363</ref>

David Kupelian, author of ''The Marketing of Evil,'' describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,
<blockquote>
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.<ref>http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/01/sold-on-homosexuality-marketing-of-evil.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.<ref>http://www.americanancestors.org/PageDetail.aspx?recordId=134544248</ref> The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]</ref> In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

The charge of [[homophobia]] has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]</ref>

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, ''The Gay Agenda stated'': "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."

Erik Holland, author of ''The Nature of Homosexuality'', perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

===Influence in the academic world===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled ''First Things'' (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.
{{cquote|[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>}}

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

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

*Threatening to shut all the soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment <ref>[http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/ArticleID/1824489]Salvation Army Uses Homeless To Fight Gay Benefits </ref>
*Encouraging email activism
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref>
*Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.

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

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*[[Homophobia]]
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexual logic]], used to justify and promote the homosexual agenda
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Homosexualization]]

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}

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

M. Night Shyamalan

2012-04-26T07:00:29Z

JRegden: Spelling error

'''Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan''', known as '''M. Night Shyamalan''' (born 1970 in India), is a [[movie]] [[director]] who burst to fame with his 1999 hit [[drama]] ''[[The Sixth Sense]]''. He is famous for films with dramatic plot twists, often based on the supernatural.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shyamalan, M. Night}}
[[category:directors]]

== Famous Works ==
*The Sixth Sense (1999)
*Unbreakable (2000)
*Signs (2002)
*The Village (2004)

== Devil (2010) ==
In 2010, the film ''Devil'', directed by famed American horror director [[John Erick Dowdle]] was released. Shyamalan both produced and wrote the film. The plot of the film revolves around a belief that the devil walks the earth, hunting those who have sinned, bringing them together and torturing them before killing them one by one. Despite warm reception from liberals, the film contains many gross religious inaccuracies.

User:JRegden

2012-04-26T06:59:30Z

JRegden:

*34
*British born, working in Japan as translator.
*Lived in Japan since 1995.
*Always happy to help with any Japan or Japanese related questions.

== Me ==
Hello! I'm James! I'm happy to help with any questions you might have! :)

Talk:M. Night Shyamalan

2012-04-26T06:57:19Z

JRegden: Could someone take a look at my edits, I'm new to this!

== Devil & Slight Update ==
I developed the opening paragraph a little, added a list of significant films, and (I really hope this is OK) I added a little bit about 2010's Devil. I tried to stay fair and objective, but if someone could take a look over it I would appreciate it - that film disgusted me simply because it was a manhandling of belief in the Devil by a director looking for a cheap scare. I'm new to this website so if someone more experienced would take a look I'd appreciate it. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 02:57, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

M. Night Shyamalan

2012-04-26T06:55:18Z

JRegden:

'''Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan''', known as '''M. Night Shyamalan''' (born 1970 in India), is a [[movie]] [[director]] who burst to fame with his 1999 hit [[drama]] ''[[The Sixth Sense]]''. He is famous for films with dramatic plot twists, often based on the supernatural.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shyamalan, M. Night}}
[[category:directors]]

== Famous Works ==
*The Sixth Sense (1999)
*Unbreakable (2000)
*Signs (2002)
*The Village (2004)

== Devil (2010) ==
In 2010, the film ''Devil'', directed by famed American horror director [[John Erick Dowdle]] was released. Shyamalan both produced and wrote the film. The plot of the film revolves around a belief that the devil walks the earth, hunting those who have sinned, bringing them together and torturing them before killing them one by one. Despite warm reception from iberals, the film contains many gross religious inaccuracies.

Talk:Worst College Majors

2012-04-26T06:47:33Z

JRegden: /* Good college majors? */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== English? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Do these majors even exist? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Film==

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::It's obviously good to take down bs-y and preachy topics like "gender theory" and less obvious ones like comparative religion which is tinted with disbelief and lack of respect for religion. But should people turn away from majors like architecture and astronomy just because they're not as easily profitable? People with true ability and work ethic can go far in these fields and I would recommend any talented conservatives pursue those options. I would be proud to see more successful architects and astronomers with strong conservative values. {{unsigned|KingHanksley}}

==Video game design should be removed==

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

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

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

==Interior Design==

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

==Worst College Majors==

I read [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/11/07/10-worst-college-majors-for-employment/ this article on Marketwatch today] and was interested in the topic, so I googled around a bit and found your article. You might want to add some of this info. [[User:EdRichstein|EdRichstein]] 14:45, 7 November 2011 (EST)

== Good college majors? ==

As this is an educational website, perhaps we should suggest some good college majors, like mathematics, law, etc.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:31, 12 February 2012 (EST)
::This might be a bit of challenge to keep clear and honest, depending on one's point of view. For example business studies teaches students the value of hard work and financial responsibility, but is often taught by liberal teachers who teach ridiculous concepts like outsourcing of employment to China. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 02:47, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

== The Validity of Happiness? ==

I can understand the logic that dictates how so many of these would be poor majors, but at the same time I think that a list like this is unfair to the people, liberal or conservative, who choose their major despite the humble monetary return. There are people who are happy to be a film or interior design or even video game design major, and who will carry that into their professional careers, regardless of political or religious views. It is entirely possible for these people to make enough to be happy and to not have to struggle with money. It is also possible for them to maintain their own ethics and morality per their administration of a higher power. So why criticise their joy in living a life on God's earth?

:If there were full disclosure of the worthlessness of these majors to students who pay up to $50,000 per year in tuition and expenses, then these majors would not be so objectionable. But I doubt a single university makes such a disclosure to its students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:40, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Cafeteria Christianity

2012-04-26T06:42:55Z

JRegden:

==Deletion of Examples of Commonly Ignored Bible Verses==
I recently edited this article to include some examples of Bible verses commonly ignored by Cafeteria Christians, but my changes were reverted without explanation. Mr. Schlafly, if you read this could you please help me understand why this is? I am quite certain that for each example given, there is a significant number of Americans who either violate the law directly or who tacitly approve of such violation, often without even acknowledging their sins. Is there some nuance in the definition of "Cafeteria Christian" that I am not picking up on, or is the definition not made clear in the article? --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 13:06, 2 February 2011 (EST)

== All or none ==

What about the Christians that don't believe it's o.k. to stone unruly teenagers to death? Or the ones that disagree with the part that says its alright to beat your slave, so long as he doesn't die? Or where it says not to eat shellfish or pork? These things aren't commonly accepted in modern Christianity, but wouldn't that still be cafeteria Christianity? Either the Bible is the word of God, and everything in it should be regarded as true, or it isn't the word of God and it shouldn't be treated as such. If the part condemning homosexuality cannot be disregarded, then these parts cannot either. --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 19:56, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other Common Names ==

I've heard this approach to Christianity called 'Pick-and-Mix', 'Pick-and-choose' (sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not) and 'McDonalds Christanity' (which I believe is a reference to fast food buffets), would it be OK to add these to the article? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 02:41, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Cafeteria Christianity

2012-04-26T06:41:54Z

JRegden:

==Deletion of Examples of Commonly Ignored Bible Verses==
I recently edited this article to include some examples of Bible verses commonly ignored by Cafeteria Christians, but my changes were reverted without explanation. Mr. Schlafly, if you read this could you please help me understand why this is? I am quite certain that for each example given, there is a significant number of Americans who either violate the law directly or who tacitly approve of such violation, often without even acknowledging their sins. Is there some nuance in the definition of "Cafeteria Christian" that I am not picking up on, or is the definition not made clear in the article? --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 13:06, 2 February 2011 (EST)

== All or none ==

What about the Christians that don't believe it's o.k. to stone unruly teenagers to death? Or the ones that disagree with the part that says its alright to beat your slave, so long as he doesn't die? Or where it says not to eat shellfish or pork? These things aren't commonly accepted in modern Christianity, but wouldn't that still be cafeteria Christianity? Either the Bible is the word of God, and everything in it should be regarded as true, or it isn't the word of God and it shouldn't be treated as such. If the part condemning homosexuality cannot be disregarded, then these parts cannot either. --[[User:Jab512|Jab512]] 19:56, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other Common Names ==

I've heard this approach to Christianity called 'Pick-and-choose' (sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not) multiple times, would it be OK to add it to the article? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 02:41, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Breatharianism

2012-04-26T02:20:54Z

JRegden:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
Why is this in category psychology? [[User:Psychedit|Psychedit]]
:Maybe it's too bizarre even for psychology? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 22:20, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Did Santorum Quit?

2012-04-25T01:06:01Z

JRegden: /* His daughter was sick */

== "How soon will Santorum begin campaigning against pro-life Newt Gingrich?" ==

Do you really think anybody is taking Gingrich (and his 136 delegates) as seriously as [[Gingrich Administration|a viable candidate for the Republican nomination]] at this point? If Santorum really has the best interests of the party (and Romney) at heart, he should be campaigning against the president, not some irrelevant has-been who is staying in the race solely for reasons of self-promotion (...which speaks to your "mystery" about why Santorum decided to stop spending other people's money on a lost cause. There is a lot wrong with the guy, but he's nowhere near as in love with himself or as slimy as Gingrich) . [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm curious: which Democrats would you refer to as "slimy" or "in love with himself"? Gingrich is no worse than many liberals in that regard.

:But back to the main point. If you're right about Gingrich and Santorum, then is your prediction that Santorum won't campaign against Gingrich? I predict that Santorum will, beginning as early as this month.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::Just about all politicians are slimy and in love with themselves. It goes with the territory. There is no need to campaign against Gingrich. He's performed very poorly so far, and will not secure anywhere near enough delegates in the short term to make him a threat in the long term. Romney is the presumptive nominee, and barring some unforeseen disaster (he gets sick, some incredibly horrific thing from his past comes to light, etc) all of the party's focus is on Obama from here on out. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:43, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::But, again, if you were right that "[t]here is no need to campaign against Gingrich," then Santorum won't do it. But I predict he does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::If he does, Santorum is even dumber than I thought he might be, and the Republican Party is even more out-of-touch with reality than I had figured. Wasting any sort of resources on a guy who has barely more than a fifth of the delegates as does the leader at the half-way point of the race and who doesn't have any reporters travelling with his campaign would be beyond stupid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 11:14, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::It would save Romney's campaign millions of dollars if Gingrich were to pull out now, or be discredited. Would it be "beyond stupid" for Romney to ask now for Santorum's help in campaigning against Gingrich?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Why would it save Romney money? Surely he isn't so foolish as to waste money campaigning against a candidate with no chance of victory.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:01, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Andy, show us where Romney is buying up ad time with ads targeting Gingrich. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 21:07, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Santorum will not "campaign against Gingrich" ==

Two days ago, at the NRA convention, with what may be his last guaranteed national audience for the foreseeable future, Santorum [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/13/santorum-hails-nra-fight-for-individual-freedom/ focused his remarks on Obama], not on Gingrich. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 13:36, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== His daughter was sick ==

She has a life threatening condition. I think that is a pretty good reason to quit, maybe not of itself, but combined with Romney's victories at the time, that may have been the impetus.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:06, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:That would certainly be a good reason to quit, and we pray for a speedy recovery for her. But it seems unlikely that was the real reason Santorum quit at this time, given how he said he would help Romney, and has not endorsed the remaining [[pro-life]], [[conservative]] candidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:24, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::I agree, and echo your prayers for her recovery. I would hope a man running for office would be able to juggle family and responsibility, no matter how grave the family situation may be, so I would assume it wasn't his primary reason for leaving. I would imagine it was a catalyst that lead to his quitting. [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 21:06, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

== why santorum quit and why social conservatives have traction problems at presidential/national election level ==

Santorum quite because the bankers/businessman have more power than social conservatives in the Republican Party due to fundraising and their ability to do massive television advertising plus the conservative vote was split. In 2020, the balance of power may tip towards the social conservatives (see: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html balance of power shifting]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:09, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Isn't it obvious? ==

He quit because it was obvious that he was not in a position to win.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:But that's been true for a while, and both candidates with less favorable polling (Gingrich and Paul) have stayed in. Moreover, usually quitting for that reason occurs shortly after or before a major primary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:51, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::"Moreover, usually quitting for that reason occurs shortly after or before a major primary." Which would explain why Santorum quit before the major primary in Pennsylvania, perhaps?
::Also, what Gingrich and Paul do is irrelevant to understanding Santorum. Paul is an ideologue who hopes to use the GOP campaign as a way to advance his libertarian platform. Gingrich is a shameless publicity hound looking to increase his visibility and sell books. Santorum is neither of those. Moreover, not all people do all things for all the same reasons anyways, right? [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:04, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I have an [[open mind]] about this mystery. But it is unpersuasive to me that Santorum quit when he did simply because he thought he could not win. His second-place standing had not changed for some time, and others in his position or worse, this year and prior years, have not quit like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::::You keep providing excellent reasons to why he would quit; see above for the timing of the announcement before a major primary, and you're right, "his second-place standing had not changed for some time." Do you know what they usually call the guy whose second place standing remains unchanged for a long time? The loser. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:41, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::So I think that there is general agreement that he quit because he didn't think he would win. And you've got to quit at some point. In that case the mystery, if there is one, is over the timing rather than the reason.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:22, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::It's the timing and circumstances that are the mystery. When does a competitive athlete stop trying in a game, despite having no chance of winning? Never, except in the unusual situations where there is another explanation (e.g., a stomach virus).

::::::But you may be right. There is logic to inferring that the Santorum campaign simply ran out of money. But when Hillary ran out of money, she didn't quit; when Newt ran out of money he didn't quit. After all, it's only money, and most candidates believe in bigger ideals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:19, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::So when Santorum says that he quit because he ran out of money (see below), you're calling him a liar. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 19:27, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::No, I'm not calling Santorum a "liar". I don't recall Santorum saying that financial issues were the only reason, or even the most important reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
Andy, that's EXACTLY what he said: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413143-503544/santorum-i-left-gop-race-because-money-dried-up/ "For the first time the campaign had a debt, the debt was from my perspective a little bit more substantial than I was comfortable with. And I'll be honest with you, Tony, in the last week after Wisconsin we basically raised almost no money," Santorum told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a radio interview, his first since announcing he was ending his bid. "We had solicitations going out and people were just emailing back saying the race is over and you gotta join the crew and there were others who would say not but it was a very, very small trickle of funds that were coming in."] Did you even bother to read the article that's linked to below and in the "mystery" article? The one with the headline "Santorum: I left GOP race because money dried up." ? [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 20:10, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I read it, and Santorum does not say that is the only or primary reason '''''why''''' he quit. Instead, Santorum gave many reasons, including his inability to control the "narrative", his inability to prevent Romney from winning the nomination, voters who valued "winning" more than principles, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::::alright then. Mystery solved! Time to move on. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 20:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Also, he's broke. ==

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413143-503544/santorum-i-left-gop-race-because-money-dried-up/ Mystery solved]. Campaigns can't run on fairy dust. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 15:46, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== With a week to go before the Pennsylvania Primary ==

I would expect that Santorum will be pulling out all the stops as he campaigns against Gingrich in his home state of Pennsylvania. Maybe we can gather all of the reports/speeches/etc. here to show how hard Santorum will be campaigning against Gingrich in one place. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:27, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== Santorum campaigning against Gingrich? ==

So I'm wondering how much damage effect the efforts that you predicted Santorum would put in against Gingrich did to Newt's campaign. Given that there was a primary in Santorum's home state today, I can only assume he spent a grueling week on the hustings campaigning against Gingrich. What were your personal highlights of the many speeches that Santorum must have given, Aschlafly? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 20:53, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

User:JRegden

2012-04-25T01:01:36Z

JRegden: Created page with "I will write this one day, if I have time to contribute, but if you'd like to contact me I will occasionally check my talk page. I signed up because one of my colleagues 'troll..."

I will write this one day, if I have time to contribute, but if you'd like to contact me I will occasionally check my talk page.

I signed up because one of my colleagues 'trolled' your website, which is reprehensible, and I wanted to apologise on his behalf. (He won't apologise... believe me!)

All the best.

User talk:JRegden

2012-04-25T01:00:25Z

JRegden: Created page with "== Apologies For An Idiot Coworker == Mr. Schlafly - It has come to my attention a colleague of mine created an account on your website and added nonsense to some of your article..."

== Apologies For An Idiot Coworker ==
Mr. Schlafly - It has come to my attention a colleague of mine created an account on your website and added nonsense to some of your articles. I apologise profusely on his behalf and hope the damage was all reversible.

One good outcome of this affair is that it turned me on to your website, which I am finding to be a very welcome change from Wikipedia. I look forward to CP's coverage of the upcoming presidential race.

Thanks from a British reader based in Japan! [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 21:00, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

(I couldn't edit Andy's talk page so I posted this here, I hope that's OK)